TIME DILATION
vertv...@msn.com
TIME DILATION
Vertner Vergon
The question arises, how can we judge the accuracy of an article that
involves a theory?
Firstly, the article (theory) must be consistent both internally and
with empiricism. If it isn't it is flawed.
Secondly, it must not violate any known physics laws. Nor, obviously,
can it lead to a reductio ad absurdum.
Theories necessarily contain speculation - else they are not theories
but simply logical constructs. Such constructs must also meet the above
requirements.
Articles generally contain both theory and reference to facts (such as
experiments). These must be verified.
If an article ( or theory) meets these requirements it cannot be
rejected. If it is, it is done so out of sheer obstinancy and/or
stupidity.
Let us examine the concept of Time Dilation as contained in the Special
Theory of Relativity.
We start our examination of the time dilation concept by going to its
source -- Einstein's paper, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. We
refer to his gedanken experiment of moving clocks. One of two identical
clocks remains at rest while the other moves away and returns. When
Einstein perceived the difference of the clock readings in his
calculations, he stated the moving clock "was slow by ...". The
immediate perception by the public was that he meant if a clock was
"slow by" - it had to have run slower. He also said the moving clock
was "behind" the inertial clock by ... . These two statements do
not mean the same thing. If one clock is running slower, then it is
running slower, and that has only one meaning.
On the other hand to say one clock is behind the other is open to
alternative explanations, e.g., the moving clock could have traveled a
shorter world line -- or may have traveled faster than observed. In
either case the clock would maintain its normal (proper) rate but for a
shorter duration than the inertial clock and thus be behind. At any
rate the accepted version is that the clock ran slower and thus was
born the concept of time dilation.
This concept is usually presented by an illustration that says if one
were to observe a clock on a fast moving spaceship, they would observe
it to run slowly. It must be emphasized that this running slowly occurs
regardless of the direction or vector of the ship. That is to say it
matters not whether the spaceship is receding or approaching, time runs
slower. Also to be emphasized is that this slowness of time is not just
a matter of observation but actually takes place -- for when the clock
returns it is actually 'behind" the stationary (or Earth) clock.
Since this is the declared case, we are inevitably drawn to only one
conclusion, the moving clock has to be running slowly in its own
coordinate system. Here we are faced with an unforgiving contradiction
for basic relativity states that all clocks keep proper time in their
respective coordinate systems. It is inconsistent that a clock can
actually run slowly in its own coordinate system - and also, the
while, keep proper time; in short the clock would have to keep two
different rates simultaneously, a reductio ad absurdum. This
contradiction requires that the time dilation concept, i.e., t' = t (1
- v2/c2)^ 1/2 be discarded.
The question arises, is there something to take its place? The answer
is yes.
To lay the foundation for this replacement we note that any known
constant frequency is a clock. The scientific community has chosen the
excited cesium atom as the standard atomic clock. This is an arbitrary
choice. Next, we note that the cesium clock (or any other constant
frequency atom) will never vary in its rate. So they will always keep
proper time. However, observations of these clocks will show a
variation due to the Doppler effect. We declare this variation in
frequency is a variation in observed time. Since the frequency is a
clock, an observed variation in the frequency is an observed variation
in time. Call it Doppler or what one will, that is merely a description
of the mechanics. In the final analysis it is a variation in observed
time.
THINGS ARE NOT ALWAYS WHAT THEY SEEM.
Next, we examine a counter argument which states that the relativistic
Doppler rate is the result of the following: If one takes the
non-relativistic Doppler rate and modifies it by the time dilation
they, come up with the relativistic Doppler rate. This, supposedly,
confirms time dilation. Upon further examination, we perceive that even
if we were to accept that explanation, what we have is the situation
whereby an approaching clock is observed to run fast -- not as fast as
non-relativistic mechanics would have -- but fast. This is contrary to
time dilation which requires an approaching clock to run slowly. That a
reversal in direction results in a reversal of time rate is to be
expected since time variation is the result of velocity vectors - and
vectors are directional.
If a theory conflicts with empiricism, it has to be discarded.
Using the Doppler rate as the time rate will yield the time dilation
effect. And that is the proper way to refer to it -- "time dilation
effect". The reason: The net time differential when the movement of the
clock is complete is the same as though the dilation time was operative
throughout.
What then? What is the explanation for the "effect", but not the
actuality? Particle accelerator operators and Ives & Stillwell claim to
have "directly observed" time dilation. What they have observed is
transverse Doppler rates. And it so happens, by some extraordinary
coincidence, that the transverse Doppler rate is the same as the time
dilation rate.
And now to display the Doppler time resolution of the Twins Paradox:
What is displayed here is the round trip Twins experience with no
paradox. The upward arrow signifies outward bound, the downward arrow
signifies inward bound. The double arrows signify the ship being
observed going outbound while it in actuality is traveling inbound.
(second chart). This, of course, is due to the time it takes light to
travel. The velocity is v(.75c). At this velocity the so called time
dilation rate is 1/2 . The distance to far-point is sqrt(3 light
seconds). So the elapsed time for the ship's transit is one second
due to the fact its actual velocity is sqrt(3 light seconds/sec) ( See
The Dual Velocity Theory of Relativity.)
( For seconds or years, the figures hold.)
This means that four years on earth would be only two years on ship.
The time rates shown in the second chart are the time rates of the ship
as observed by earth. They are Doppler rates.
They have to be. Any invariable frequency -- clock or atom -- will be
observed at Doppler rates. The same is true for observations of earth
by the ship (first chart). So there is a parity of rate observations as
required by the principle of relativity.
Notice, there is no time dilation rate observed (1/2 in this case) --
but when the trip is concluded the difference in the clock readings is
as though the ship clock had run at half time to the earth clock, i.e.
, run at dilation time. When Einstein saw that in his calculations
(1905 paper) he said the A clock "ran slow" by ... . This created the
impression that time really ran slower for the ship's clock. The table
below shows this isn't so. It runs at the normal (proper) rate but is
observed to run at the Doppler rate.
It is worth mentioning that according to the Special Theory of
Relativity a clock in the approach mode runs slow - but astronomers
observe clocks in the approach mode, and they are running fast.
Consequently, there is no time dilation observed. There is, however, a
time dilation effect, i.e., the transit time differential on the two
clocks -- and these were created by Doppler time.
OBSERVE:
(IF THE TABLES ARE DISBURST YOU CAN SEE THEM INTACT ON
http://www.wbabin.net. Find the pull down LIST OF AUTHORS and click on
Vertner Vergon . The title is "On the Quantum as a Physical
Entity")
ASTRONAUT'S TABLE
***************************
ELAPSED TIME X TIME-FREQUENCY =
OBSERVED ELAPSED
ON SHIP RATE
TIME ON EARTH
(IN SECONDS) (t/f)
( IN SECONDS)
_____________________________________________________________
/ \ 1.000 X
.268 = .268
|
| 1.000 X
3.732 = 3.732
\ /
_____________________________________________________________
total
elapsed 2.000
4.000
time
So we see that although the final time differential is as though time
dilation were operating - in fact it is the Doppler time-frequency
that operates.
Note: Not only is there a parity of rate observations, but the length
of time each twin is an observer is equal to the time he is observed.
Thus there is a time commonality of observation. This, in a space-time
chart given in Space-time Physics (by Taylor and Wheeler), is labeled
the "line of simultaneity".
Randy Poe
vertver...@msn.com wrote:
> TIME DILATION
>
> Vertner Vergon
>
>
> The question arises, how can we judge the accuracy of an article that
> involves a theory?
>
> Firstly, the article (theory) must be consistent both internally and
> with empiricism. If it isn't it is flawed.
>
> Secondly, it must not violate any known physics laws.
Bzzt. What if the "known physics laws" turn out to be inaccurate
or inconsistent with experiment? The old theories are constructed
from fewer experimental results than the new theories.
- Randy
Sue...
vertv...@msn.com wrote:
[...]
> It is worth mentioning that according to the Special Theory of
> Relativity a clock in the approach mode runs slow - but astronomers
> observe clocks in the approach mode, and they are running fast.
> Consequently, there is no time dilation observed. There is, however, a
> time dilation effect, i.e., the transit time differential on the two
> clocks -- and these were created by Doppler time.
No... the theory is silent about the *appearance* of an aproaching
clock and it says this about the *appearance* of receeding clock:
<< 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
(equation)
seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. >>
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html
Advanced potential is a causal absurdiy so an approaching clock
wouldn't illustrate anything.
"Retarded potential"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
Sue...
Dirk Van de moortel
<vertv...@msn.com> wrote in message news:1155323883.0...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> TIME DILATION
See also
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Myopea.html
Dirk Vdm
Sorcerer
|
| Vertner Vergon
|
|
| The question arises, how can we judge the accuracy of an article that
| involves a theory?
|
| Firstly, the article (theory) must be consistent both internally and
| with empiricism. If it isn't it is flawed.
It's flawed, we don't need any more.
The flaw is right at the beginning, the speed of light is declared
constant from A to A in time t'A-tA.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
Crank theories of aether are flawed too, so all that is left is
plain old Newtonian common sense.
[superfluous argument snipped]
Androcles
Stamenin
mathematics. The relation
t'=t(1-v^2/c^)^1/2 Is mistaken. If you mean that t is the time at the
rails and t' at a train than the relation should be:
t=t'/R where R=(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2, for the determination of the time at
the railwayand,
t'=t/R for the determination of the time at the train. If you respect
the Lorentz transformation you can't invert these relations. Now if you
calculate with these relations the time dilatation many times you will
obtain so many times time dilatations and the time will grow
continually.Evidently these results depend only of the erronate Lorentz
transformation and do not exist and in the nature.
About the question of the theories, I should say that a theory to be a
real one must fulfil two conditions: first to be a correct theory, and
second to be accepted by an unanimity of the men who are specialists in
that domen. As we can realize the Einstein theory doesn't fulfil both
of these conditions.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stamenin" <tas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1155362119.8...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> The time dilatation or the relativity of the time is a joke of the
> mathematics. The relation
> t'=t(1-v^2/c^)^1/2 Is mistaken. If you mean that t is the time at the
> rails and t' at a train than the relation should be:
> t=t'/R where R=(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2, for the determination of the time at
> the railwayand,
> t'=t/R for the determination of the time at the train. If you respect
> the Lorentz transformation you can't invert these relations.
It seems that you don't understand the meaning of the variables
t and t' in these relations.
You see, t is not just like you say "the time at the rails", and t' is
not "the time at the train".
If t and t' were like you think they are, then indeed there is
something wrong.
This is a *very* common mistake and misunderstanding.
The variable t is "the time Of Some Event according to a clock
on the rails", whereas the variable t' is "the time Of Some Event
according to a clock on the train.
The specification "Of Some Event" is the most important part
in these definitions. Ignoring it guarantees immediate failure.
The relation
t' = t sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
says something about an event that happens on the train.
whereas the relation
t = t' sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
says something about an event that happens on the rails.
These relations say something about very different situations.
Do you understand this?
Dirk Vdm
Sorcerer
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:oF6Dg.16625$Lf3.3...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
x' and xi, Mr Magoo?
Sorcerer
"Stamenin" <tas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155362119.8...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
|
It doesn't matter that you find a contradiction as a result of the flaw,
the actual flaw which is at the root cause of all examples is c = 0/0.
There are a gazillion examples out there, everyone has there own.
"If you respect the Lorentz transformation you can't invert these
relations."
All statements starting with "If" should be completed with a clause
commencing with "Else" as any competent computer programmer
will know.
If "A" then "B" else "NOT B" or "B"
If "NOT B" then "NOT A" else "A" or "NOT A".
Else you do NOT respect the cuckoo transformations and you
can't invert these relations.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
Sorcerer
|
| "Stamenin" <tas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155362119.8...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
|
| [snip]
Don't you mean [anip] ?
Have you found the difference between x' and xi yet, or has myopia
got the better of you?
Androcles.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message news:U6hDg.81159$9d4....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Androcles does the Parker Logic:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORWildStab.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XOROnceMore.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORrevisited.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORContinued.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORPersistence.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LooksBoolean.html
Dirk Vdm
Sorcerer
[anip]
xi-x' > 0, imbecile.
Androcles
YBM
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORPersistence.html
This one gives "Page not found - HTTP 404".
Dirk Van de moortel
"YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote in message news:44ddcf14$0$26430$636a...@news.free.fr...
> Dirk Van de moortel a écrit :
>
>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORPersistence.html
>
> This one gives "Page not found - HTTP 404".
Silly case sensitivity.
Try http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORpersistence.html
Thanks.
Dirk Vdm
Sorcerer
[anip]
Have you found the difference between xi and x' yet, local village idiot?
Androcles
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote
on Sat, 12 Aug 2006 14:23:22 GMT
<uvlDg.86109$F8.4...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
x' = phi(-v)*beta(-v)*(xi + v*tau)
where beta(v) = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Since phi(-v) = 1,
x' = beta(-v)*(xi + v*tau) = (xi + v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
therefore
xi - x' = xi - (xi + v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) .
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Since tau is a free variable no conclusions can be drawn regarding
whether xi < x', xi > x', or xi = x'.
Note that there is a minor error in the paper, since x' is defined twice
in section 3; an alternate answer to your question is therefore
xi - (x - vt) = xi - x + vt
and we still can draw no conclusions about the relative ordering of x'
and xi.
Does this answer your question? :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
Sorcerer
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:1v91r3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
| <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
| wrote
| on Sat, 12 Aug 2006 14:23:22 GMT
| <uvlDg.86109$F8.4...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
| >
| > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
| > in message news:f0lDg.17859$Nu3.3...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
| >
| >
| > [anip]
| > Have you found the difference between xi and x' yet, local village
idiot?
| > Androcles
| >
|
| x' = phi(-v)*beta(-v)*(xi + v*tau)
| where beta(v) = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
|
| Since phi(-v) = 1,| x' = beta(-v)*(xi + v*tau) = (xi +
v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
|
| therefore
| xi - x' = xi - (xi + v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) .
|
| http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
|
| Since tau is a free variable no conclusions can be drawn regarding
| whether xi < x', xi > x', or xi = x'.
Ahem....
"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. "
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
NOTE... "IT IS CLEAR". Einstein said so and unless you think the length
of a train will change overnight, is is very clear.
| Note that there is a minor error in the paper,
Yes, there is a MAJOR error on the paper. Several, in fact, the first being
the so-called light postulate for which there never was any physical
foundation,
the next being the time postulate and the stupid assumption that the speed
of light is measured from A to A in time t'A-tA instead of from A to B in
time t, from which comes "the velocity of light in our theory plays the
part,
physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
Einstein plays the part of con-artist gigolo and you play the part of a
Neanderthal troglodyte pretending to be a ghost. I play the part
of a slave and Dork plays the part of himself, he can't even spell his own
name.
| since x' is defined twice
| in section 3; an alternate answer to your question is therefore
|
I didn't find that, you are seeing double.
| xi - (x - vt) = xi - x + vt
|
| and we still can draw no conclusions about the relative ordering of x'
| and xi.
|
| Does this answer your question? :-)
My question was to Dork. He thinks x' = xi, but one would expect that
from a moron.
It is quite clear that
xi = beta(x-vt) = beta.x'
from http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif
which puts elliptical wheels on Rockets:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/LTstretch.gif
Androcles.
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote
<3boDg.82204$9d4....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
Yes, it is clear that Einstein is making an invalid
assumption. And train lengths *do* change overnight, as
cars are coupled and decoupled and placed on sidings or
added to the train; there's also some give in the couplings
as trains accelerate, simply from metal strain, and also
by design. This makes length experiments very tricky,
as Miller found out in his determinations that we are
moving generally southward in the celestial sphere.
Not that Miller used trains, but he *did* have problems
with length fluctuation -- this time from temperature.
>
> | Note that there is a minor error in the paper,
>
> Yes, there is a MAJOR error on the paper. Several, in fact, the first being
> the so-called light postulate for which there never was any physical
> foundation,
I was referring to x'. However, you are correct; there is a major error
in the paper that requires lightspeed to be zero.
Not 0/0. Not a constant. Not a variable. Zero. This is near the
bottom of section 1 (corrected as per requirements):
In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
(AB+BA)/(t'_A-t_A) = c
to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space.
since after all the light is being bounced back from a mirror.
This value is *zero*, since AB+BA = 0 as a vector and t'_A-t_A is
nonzero. 0/t = 0 for any t > 0. (For any t < 0 as well, for
that matter.) This also means c is a *vector*, and is identically zero.
Therefore, c = (0,0,0), |c| = 0, and the entire rest of the
paper falls apart. That SR and GR have been confirmed by
many experiments (so the scientists say) leads one to many
interesting paths, some of them suggesting the scientists
are corrupt graft-seeking bloodsucking leeches on society;
others simply referring that the AB+BA logic interpretation
is flat-out wrong.
Of course, most now simply take the simpler (to them) path:
that 2AB/(t'_A-t_A) = c was correct in the first place
and that "Lichtgeschwindigkeit", the original term used,
was intended to mean speed, despite its ambiguity in German.
> the next being the time postulate and the stupid assumption that the speed
> of light is measured from A to A in time t'A-tA instead of from A to B in
> time t, from which comes "the velocity of light in our theory plays the
> part,
> physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
> Einstein plays the part of con-artist gigolo and you play the part of a
> Neanderthal troglodyte pretending to be a ghost. I play the part
> of a slave and Dork plays the part of himself, he can't even spell his own
> name.
You are not a slave. You are a superintelligent pandimensional being.
Don't play stupid.
>
>
>
> | since x' is defined twice
> | in section 3; an alternate answer to your question is therefore
> |
> I didn't find that, you are seeing double.
And you are not seeing.
Near the top of Section 3:
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. We
first define tau as a function of x', y, z, and t. To do this we
have to express in equations that $\tau$ is nothing else than the
summary of the data of clocks at rest in system k, which have been
synchronized according to the rule given in section 1.
Near the bottom:
For this purpose we introduce a third system of co-ordinates K', which relatively to the system k is in a state of parallel
translatory motion parallel to the axis of Xi (footnote 1) such that the
origin of co-ordinates of system K, moves with velocity -v
on the axis of Xi. At the time t=0 let all three origins
coincide, and when t=x=y=z=0 let the time t' of the system K
be zero. We call the co-ordinates, measured in the system K,
x', y', z', and by a twofold application of our equations of
transformation we obtain [...]
Clearly there are two definitions of x', one simply equating x'=x-vt,
the other defining x' as the first coordinate in a third 4-space, moving
in the direction opposite to k.
>
>
> | xi - (x - vt) = xi - x + vt
> |
> | and we still can draw no conclusions about the relative ordering of x'
> | and xi.
> |
> | Does this answer your question? :-)
>
> My question was to Dork. He thinks x' = xi, but one would expect that
> from a moron.
It would appear the second definition of x' = x, not xi. Not that
it matters; beta(v) = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is not a function since
vector c is zero (c^2 = c dot c is a reasonable interpretation).
>
> It is quite clear that
> xi = beta(x-vt) = beta.x'
> from http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif
> which puts elliptical wheels on Rockets:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/LTstretch.gif
>
> Androcles.
>
>
vertv...@msn.com
One has to determine if a law is proven and valid. If not then maybe
the new theory does not have to consider it.
vertv...@msn.com
Sue... wrote:
> vertv...@msn.com wrote:
>
> [...]
> > It is worth mentioning that according to the Special Theory of
> > Relativity a clock in the approach mode runs slow - but astronomers
> > observe clocks in the approach mode, and they are running fast.
> > Consequently, there is no time dilation observed. There is, however, a
> > time dilation effect, i.e., the transit time differential on the two
> > clocks -- and these were created by Doppler time.
>
> No... the theory is silent about the *appearance* of an aproaching
> clock and it says this about the *appearance* of receeding clock:
VERGON
Wrong. Read Einstein's account. He states the moving clock runs slowly
going out and back.
> << 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
>
> (equation)
>
> seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. >>
> http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html
>
> Advanced potential is a causal absurdiy so an approaching clock
> wouldn't illustrate anything.
VERGON
I don't know what "advanced potential" is and what that has to do with
vertv...@msn.com
> you, is the difference between the distances of two points on the
> object, measured simultaneously in your frame.
> Since nothing is moving between the endpoints of the object
> during some time interval, the act of dividing the difference between
> these distances by a time interval is meaningless.
VERGON
If you measure the distance between two poiints SIMULTANEOUSLY there is
no time interval. So you are not measuring the distance by a time
interval. There is no motion.
VERT
You're suffering from myopea. You just said that the *length* is the
"distance".You are agreeing with me and don't know it.
VERGON
Heaven forbid. :-) You are agreeing with me.
> Next, you are
>saying that dividing the distance by time is meaningless*! I guess you
>never learned the definition of velocity. Pity.
> Dirk Vdm
VERGON
I guess you can't read. Pity!!!! I definitely said that velocity is
distance/time.
Sue...
vertv...@msn.com wrote:
> Sue... wrote:
> > vertv...@msn.com wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > It is worth mentioning that according to the Special Theory of
> > > Relativity a clock in the approach mode runs slow - but astronomers
> > > observe clocks in the approach mode, and they are running fast.
> > > Consequently, there is no time dilation observed. There is, however, a
> > > time dilation effect, i.e., the transit time differential on the two
> > > clocks -- and these were created by Doppler time.
> >
> > No... the theory is silent about the *appearance* of an aproaching
> > clock and it says this about the *appearance* of receeding clock:
>
> VERGON
> Wrong. Read Einstein's account. He states the moving clock runs slowly
> going out and back.
His words we cut and pasted for you.
<< 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
(equation)
seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. >>
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html
> >
> > Advanced potential is a causal absurdiy so an approaching clock
> > wouldn't illustrate anything.
>
> VERGON
> I don't know what "advanced potential" is and what that has to do with
> anything.
It is in the chapter following
"Retarded potential".
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
Sue...
> >
> > Sue...
Stamenin
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
The time is time and is masured in seconds. If you mean that there the
t and t' are differences of time relative to a event then have to
represent them as Dt and Dt'. In this case you again, do not obtain a
beter situation. Try to repeat the calculation and will get the same
result that the intevals will grow as meny times as times you repeat
the calculation. So what is the difference. In fact by making the
difference of two moments wetween which apears that event for examle
from:
t=1/R(t'+vx'^2/c^2)
You get rid of the term (vx'^2/c^2) and would have the relations:
Dt=Dt'/R and Dt'=Dt/R. The bad thing is in these caces that the
condition x'=cons. and
x=cons. These conditions put the question, what kind of events are they
if the material body M hose coordinates are x and x' is in a state of
staying. And whot happens with the time when x and x' are not constant?
Dirk Van de moortel
<vertv...@msn.com> wrote in message news:1155433708.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> <vertv...@msn.com> wrote in message news:1155323883.0...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > TIME DILATION
>>
>> See also
>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Myopea.html
>>
>> Longitudinal length of an object in relative motion with respect to
>> you, is the difference between the distances of two points on the
>> object, measured simultaneously in your frame.
>> Since nothing is moving between the endpoints of the object
>> during some time interval, the act of dividing the difference between
>> these distances by a time interval is meaningless.
>
> VERGON
YES, YOUR NAME IS VERGON. CONGRATULTIONS!
But there really is no reason to shout it all over the place.
> If you measure the distance between two poiints SIMULTANEOUSLY there is
> no time interval. So you are not measuring the distance by a time
> interval. There is no motion.
Right, there is no motion involved in measuring the longitudinal
length of an object, even if it is moving with respect to you
while you measure its length.
At some time, the distance to one endpoint is x1 and
the distance to the other endpoint is x2. The length is then
|x1-x2|. That's how one can measure the lenght of a moving
object. Nothing is moving between the endpoints x1 and x2,
so dividing |x1-x2| by some time interval is meaningless.
Like you say, "there is no motion" involved here.
>
>
>
> VERT
> You're suffering from myopea. You just said that the *length* is the
> "distance".You are agreeing with me and don't know it.
> VERGON
> Heaven forbid. :-) You are agreeing with me.
You are agreeing with yourself, VERT.
Even if you shout your own name with each post you make,
you don't see what you have written.
>
> Next, you are
>saying that dividing the distance by time is meaningless*! I guess you
>never learned the definition of velocity. Pity.
Since nothing is moving between the endpoints of the object
during some time interval, the act of dividing the difference between
these distances by a time interval is meaningless.
>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> VERGON
> I guess you can't read. Pity!!!! I definitely said that velocity is
> distance/time.
So what?
By which time interval are you going to measure the length
of my car, and what is the meaning of the fraction?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stamenin" <tas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1155445599.4...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
hm, so you don't understand.
> If you mean that there the
> t and t' are differences of time relative to a event then have to
> represent them as Dt and Dt'.
No, actually that is not necessary. The t and t' can mean
time differences with respect to events with t = t' = 0.
In that case t = Dt and t' = Dt'.
But that is not the point.
> In this case you again, do not obtain a
> beter situation. Try to repeat the calculation and will get the same
> result that the intevals will grow as meny times as times you repeat
> the calculation. So what is the difference. In fact by making the
> difference of two moments wetween which apears that event for examle
> from:
> t=1/R(t'+vx'^2/c^2)
> You get rid of the term (vx'^2/c^2) and would have the relations:
> Dt=Dt'/R and Dt'=Dt/R. The bad thing is in these caces that the
> condition x'=cons. and
> x=cons.
> These conditions put the question, what kind of events are they
> if the material body M hose coordinates are x and x' is in a state of
> staying. And whot happens with the time when x and x' are not constant?
Hm, so indeed you really have no idea what the variables represent.
Let's add the D-symbols then and talk about explicit differences.
The relation
Dt' = Dt sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
says something about two events that happen on the train
at the same place (meaning Dx' = 0), whereas the relation
Dt = Dt' sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
says something about two events that happen on the rails
at the same place (meaning Dx = 0).
Now, as an exercise for you, if you take the equations
together and write
Dt' = Dt sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Dt = Dt' sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) ,
about which events are you talking?
And how is this reflected by the equations?
Dirk Vdm
Sorcerer
Hahahaha!
He makes a lot of them, but x-vt being constant isn't one of them.
| And train lengths *do* change overnight, as
| cars are coupled and decoupled and placed on sidings or
| added to the train; there's also some give in the couplings
| as trains accelerate, simply from metal strain, and also
| by design.
That's right.
x' + n cars = x+n cars - vt.
x' is the length of the penis, x is the distance it moves along the vagina
from the labia, xi is for pricks with a hard-on for time dilation.
| This makes length experiments very tricky,
| as Miller found out in his determinations that we are
| moving generally southward in the celestial sphere.
|
| Not that Miller used trains, but he *did* have problems
| with length fluctuation -- this time from temperature.
|
That has nothing to do with Dork not understanding xi-x' > 0.
| >
| > | Note that there is a minor error in the paper,
| >
| > Yes, there is a MAJOR error on the paper. Several, in fact, the first
being
| > the so-called light postulate for which there never was any physical
| > foundation,
|
| I was referring to x'. However, you are correct; there is a major error
| in the paper that requires lightspeed to be zero.
Err... not really. You can claim c = 0, but the speed of light isn't c
and should not be confused with c. In the original paper Einstein called it
V.
The speed of light is 300,000 km/s relative to the source.
The problem is that Einstein's paper is completely divorced from
physics, it is a rant by an incompetent moron.
We see enough of those in these newsgroups, you've seen them as
much as I. We can either take the piss out of them or ignore them,
so I take the piss out of Einstein and any of his moronic disciples.
|
| Not 0/0. Not a constant. Not a variable. Zero. This is near the
| bottom of section 1 (corrected as per requirements):
|
| In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
|
| (AB+BA)/(t'_A-t_A) = c
|
| to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space.
|
| since after all the light is being bounced back from a mirror.
|
| This value is *zero*, since AB+BA = 0 as a vector and t'_A-t_A is
| nonzero.
Err... it takes no time at all to get from A to A. I can get from A to A
in no time at all as well.
But no matter, the definition given is not valid mathematically and
c doesn't represent speed or velocity.
| 0/t = 0 for any t > 0. (For any t < 0 as well, for
| that matter.) This also means c is a *vector*, and is identically zero.
|
| Therefore, c = (0,0,0), |c| = 0, and the entire rest of the
| paper falls apart.
Ok. I've been saying that to sci.physics.relativity since Wed, Mar 17 1999
9:00 am
http://tinyurl.com/mxhm6
despite all sarcasm and criticism. Why has it taken this long for you
(and others) to catch on? Even Wilson is stupid enough to insist
Einstein's gibberish is correct, but nevertheless the paper crumbles
at this very point. How does he dismiss the paper by saying it is
wrong if he can't find WHERE it goes wrong? That, to me, is
blatant stupidity.
That SR and GR have been confirmed by
| many experiments (so the scientists say) leads one to many
| interesting paths, some of them suggesting the scientists
| are corrupt graft-seeking bloodsucking leeches on society;
| others simply referring that the AB+BA logic interpretation
| is flat-out wrong.
It's pretty easy to confirm the existence of virgin births and
visitations by angels, the bible says so. We can clone sheep, too,
and become the good shepherd. You'll find relativists are cloned
sheep, all eating the same grass in the meadow and each other's shit.
They bleat with one song, and it isn't intelligence. They wish to
portray the semblance of intelligence, but they do not have it.
|
| Of course, most now simply take the simpler (to them) path:
| that 2AB/(t'_A-t_A) = c was correct in the first place
| and that "Lichtgeschwindigkeit", the original term used,
| was intended to mean speed, despite its ambiguity in German.
But c *cannot* mean speed because Einstein uses the terms
c+v and c-v to derive the cuckoo transformations, and in any case
the train does not go back and forth.
|
| > the next being the time postulate and the stupid assumption that the
speed
| > of light is measured from A to A in time t'A-tA instead of from A to B
in
| > time t, from which comes "the velocity of light in our theory plays the
| > part,
| > physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
| > Einstein plays the part of con-artist gigolo and you play the part of a
| > Neanderthal troglodyte pretending to be a ghost. I play the part
| > of a slave and Dork plays the part of himself, he can't even spell his
own
| > name.
|
| You are not a slave. You are a superintelligent pandimensional being.
| Don't play stupid.
LOL! Whilst I may have an IQ above 100, I am far from superintelligent.
Think of the crime and the plodding policeman trying to solve it. He
makes errors along the way, the defence attorney tries to trip him up
on the witness stand. But a crime has been committed and Einstein
is the perpetrator. All I'm doing is showing how the crime was carried
out, others are insisting there is no crime.
"it is clear that the transformation from K to must be the identical
transformation. "
It is clear that we further assume in agreement with experience that K' is a
system of coordinates (another train) passing in the opposite direction.
What the fool is trying to do is get away from the track and embankment
concept and show only relative motion between two trains, each of length x'.
Even his dialogue is pure persuasion, he was a confidence trickster,
but you've pointed out mutual time dilation, or the twin paradox.
If the passing train is contracted in length then its clocks are dilated
too,
and when the trains turn around and meet again the time agrees.
"Turning around" can simply be two satellites going in opposite directions
and meeting again on the opposite side of the Earth, but then the morons
whine that they need GR to solve it, and YOU are too stupid to understand
what they pretend they can do.
| >
| > | xi - (x - vt) = xi - x + vt
| > |
| > | and we still can draw no conclusions about the relative ordering of x'
| > | and xi.
| > |
| > | Does this answer your question? :-)
| >
| > My question was to Dork. He thinks x' = xi, but one would expect that
| > from a moron.
|
| It would appear the second definition of x' = x, not xi.
No no... the train is moving relative to the station. x is increasing
because time is increasing and v is constant. x = vt (+ a constant)
because we integrate dx/dt and we know that there is a constant
when we do that.
In other words if the locomotive starts moving 1 mile from
the station, the caboose which is at the station also moves,
and the train is (1 mile long which is x') and does not change as
a function of time. So :
x' = x - (integral [dx/dt] .dt) * t
= k, the length of the train
But look earlier... to differentiate the fool says
"hence, if x' be taken infinitessimally small"
So the train is almost zero length and we are back to c being
from A to A in zero time again.
All the way through, c = 0. That is either gross incompetence or
deliberate fraud. I say fraud, the guy knew what he was doing
enough to cheat. "In agreement with experience we further assume"
is clearly a con, given away by those words, we have no such experience.
| Not that
| it matters; beta(v) = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is not a function since
| vector c is zero (c^2 = c dot c is a reasonable interpretation).
|
But it does matter. Muons originate in upper atmosphere and
decay in 2.2 usec. In race between a photon and a muon over
62 miles, the muon wins, yet this is upheld as "proof" of time dilation.
We cannot advance physics based on division by zero, and
we don't need school teachers like Baez globe trotting on other people's
money. I can understand his desire to get away from Southside
Los Angeles, but he is not honest and neither are so-called physicists
in general. Taking money under false pretenses is a crime in my
country, people like Hawking in Britain and Baez in California
should be prosecuted. Frigging CERN costs a king's ransom,
which is ok if it used to investigate Nature, but a waste of money
if used to "prove" Einstein was correct when he wasn't.
Androcles
Peter Christensen
> TIME DILATION
...
> Secondly, it must not violate any known physics laws. Nor, obviously,
> can it lead to a reductio ad absurdum.
That can be used many places.
The believe in a varying speed of light is absurd, because no attempt
to measure the speed of light has ever resulted in other values than c.
The velocity of the emitting object (call it v) does not change the
value of the speed of light as measured. One could expect to measure
v+c, but that never happens. The speed of the light is always measured
to be exactely c, in any frames.
A ballistic theory is absurd, because it would give other values than
the measured one: c.
> Theories necessarily contain speculation - else they are not theories
> but simply logical constructs. Such constructs must also meet the above
> requirements.
The concept 'time dilation' is nothing but a logical construct. It
follows from Einsteins two postulates:
* The speed of light is always c. -In all systems, also when they are
moving with different velocities!
* All systems are equal (The same physical laws, which is not so
strange.)
I hope, that you agree with me, that 'time dilation' can be derived
from the first postulate (if people believe in the first postulate or
not.)
Also: The first one is the interesting one, and it can appear quite
strange. -But again, noone has ever measured other values of the speed
of light, than the value known a c. No matter how the systems was
designed and what their velocities was.
PC
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote
<2QEDg.40604$Ca.2...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
The Newtonian speed of light is *NOT* constant; an
elementary consideration of gas kinetic theory should
convince you of that. If one assumes the sun's surface
is pure diatomic hydrogen (monatomic hydrogen will speed
up things by a factor of sqrt(2) = 1.414) then one gets
a v_RMS of approximately
v_RMS = sqrt(3*k*T/(M_H2))
where k = 1.3807*10^-23 J/K is the Boltzmann Constant,
T = 5800 K (the Sun's surface temperature),
and M_H2 = 0.002 kg/mol /N = 0.002 kg/mol / (6.022 * 10^23 at/mol)
= 3.3212 * 10^-27 kg/at.
So v_rms = 8.505 km/s or 2.835 * 10^-5 c. In SR this fuzzes out
the visible light spectra by a few picometers. In Newtonian math
one gets a time adjustment of about 14 milliseconds -- not enough
to bother SOHO or heliographs.
Of course one might (correctly) claim that it is constant
relative to the atom radiating the light but because the
atom is exhibiting Brownian motion, the source containing
the atom will be seen as moving relative to the actual
light generator, and even if the observer is motionless
relative to the macro light source, he will *not* be
motionless relative to the generator, the hot atom.
(In SR this doesn't affect lightspeed but it does fuzz out the
spectral lines a bit. Since you are on record as stating that
SR is fradulent I mention this only for completeness.)
> The problem is that Einstein's paper is completely divorced from
> physics, it is a rant by an incompetent moron.
> We see enough of those in these newsgroups, you've seen them as
> much as I. We can either take the piss out of them or ignore them,
> so I take the piss out of Einstein and any of his moronic disciples.
>
> |
> | Not 0/0. Not a constant. Not a variable. Zero. This is near the
> | bottom of section 1 (corrected as per requirements):
> |
> | In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
> |
> | (AB+BA)/(t'_A-t_A) = c
> |
> | to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space.
> |
> | since after all the light is being bounced back from a mirror.
> |
> | This value is *zero*, since AB+BA = 0 as a vector and t'_A-t_A is
> | nonzero.
>
> Err... it takes no time at all to get from A to A. I can get from A to A
> in no time at all as well.
> But no matter, the definition given is not valid mathematically and
> c doesn't represent speed or velocity.
c represents a measured velocity of something; it's a vector.
Since it's zero it's not all that interesting.
And still others are lurking trying to figure this all out -- the jury.
But you will have to at some point explain Ives and
Stillwell, Hafele and Keating (you've already explained
Sagnac), and the superluminal 120xc muon only having an
energy of 2 GeV when it should have an energy far above
that. A muon at lightspeed has a halflife of 660 meters
(speed = 300,000 km/s, lifetime = 2.2 microseconds).
A muon at rest has an energy equivalent of 105.66 MeV, give or take;
this means that a muon traveling at 120x nominal lightspeed should
last for about 80 meters but also have energy
1/2 * (120^2) * (105.66 MeV) = .761 TeV. .759 TeV of that energy
is now unaccounted for, and is floating around somewhere in the
atmosphere.
(Contemporary SR equivalent theories assume 6 GeV incoming, with
4 GeV lost to ionization as the cuckoo-transformed muon wanders
down into ground level. The required gamma is about 120, which
is the same as the time dialation factor, resulting in an energy
of about 12.68 GeV -- a bit high but not nearly as far off.)
While the aurora borealis and aurora australis might be
barely sufficient to explain this energy loss in far
northern or far southern areas, muons can be detected
pretty much anywhere. A SLAC Visitor Center Web cam is
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/cosmicrays/crdatacenter.html
together with a data retrieval option that among other things
returns counts and flux, measured as counts/minute/cm^2/sterad.
I don't know offhand how to translate this into average MeV/muon,
though it should be possible.
http://muweb.millersville.edu/~physics/exp.of.the.month/27/index.html
describes a relatively simple device for "trapping" muons in a jug.
While such a device will give one little more than average counts,
it can be done almost anywhere there is a suitable jug, water,
electrical power, and sufficient technology for the detection equipment.
Whoever's selling such equipment is committing fraud as well, since
the calculations accompaying the page are consistent to shoot Newton's
superluminal muon theory in the head. :-) (Especially since Venus is
easily seen in the pre-dawn or post-dusk sky.)
For its part SLAC is a linear accelerator capable of
accelerating electrons and positrons up to 50 GeV.
Since an electron has a rest mass energy equivalency of only 510 keV,
it has a problem similar to LHC and the Bevatron.
I've computed it. It is a mathematical curiosity only, except that
according to Wiki this has been measured by such as Rossi and Hall,
Hasselkamp, Mondry, and Scharmann, and of course Hafele and Keating,
though H&K had to do some trickery to get around statistical issues
with their cesium-ion clocks. (Modern clocks can detect the difference
in a flight from NY to London, and don't require two trips around
the world.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
It's a *big* con job, if pages such as
http://www.physlink.com/Education/askExperts/ae611.cfm
and the LHC specs (which I don't have bookmarked anymore since I lost
my bookmarks some time back) are any indication.
> If the passing train is contracted in length then its clocks are dilated
> too,
> and when the trains turn around and meet again the time agrees.
> "Turning around" can simply be two satellites going in opposite directions
> and meeting again on the opposite side of the Earth, but then the morons
> whine that they need GR to solve it, and YOU are too stupid to understand
> what they pretend they can do.
>
>
> | >
> | > | xi - (x - vt) = xi - x + vt
> | > |
> | > | and we still can draw no conclusions about the relative ordering of x'
> | > | and xi.
> | > |
> | > | Does this answer your question? :-)
> | >
> | > My question was to Dork. He thinks x' = xi, but one would expect that
> | > from a moron.
> |
> | It would appear the second definition of x' = x, not xi.
>
>
> No no... the train is moving relative to the station.
Apparently, there are *two* trains, and they are *both* moving.
The station is K, with coordinates (t,x,y,z). Moving Train #1 is k,
with coordinates (tau,xi, eta, zeta). Moving Train #2 is K',
with coordinates (t',x',y',z'), with the aforementioned error in x'.
Train #1 is known to be moving relative to the station at +v.
Train #2 is known to be moving relative to train #1 at -v.
> x is increasing
> because time is increasing and v is constant. x = vt (+ a constant)
> because we integrate dx/dt and we know that there is a constant
> when we do that.
> In other words if the locomotive starts moving 1 mile from
> the station, the caboose which is at the station also moves,
> and the train is (1 mile long which is x') and does not change as
> a function of time. So :
> x' = x - (integral [dx/dt] .dt) * t
> = k, the length of the train
>
> But look earlier... to differentiate the fool says
> "hence, if x' be taken infinitessimally small"
> So the train is almost zero length and we are back to c being
> from A to A in zero time again.
>
> All the way through, c = 0. That is either gross incompetence or
> deliberate fraud. I say fraud, the guy knew what he was doing
> enough to cheat. "In agreement with experience we further assume"
> is clearly a con, given away by those words, we have no such experience.
It's a "fraud" apparently being perpetrated by our top scientists as well.
>
>
> | Not that
> | it matters; beta(v) = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is not a function since
> | vector c is zero (c^2 = c dot c is a reasonable interpretation).
> |
> But it does matter.
This function is useless in its current form if c^2 = 0.
> Muons originate in upper atmosphere and
> decay in 2.2 usec. In race between a photon and a muon over
> 62 miles, the muon wins, yet this is upheld as "proof" of time dilation.
It is not proof. Physical results can never be proven; they can
only be upheld or disproven.
> We cannot advance physics based on division by zero, and
> we don't need school teachers like Baez globe trotting on other people's
> money. I can understand his desire to get away from Southside
> Los Angeles, but he is not honest and neither are so-called physicists
> in general. Taking money under false pretenses is a crime in my
> country, people like Hawking in Britain and Baez in California
> should be prosecuted.
You are welcome to attempt to notify the country DA.
http://da.co.la.ca.us/fraud.htm
http://da.co.la.ca.us/htcu.htm
are the official starting points and may be of some assistance. I'm
assuming this falls under "high tech fraud" since accelerators are
darned technical beasties. :-) Certainly Baez knows far more about
tensors than I do.
You will, of course, need goodly amounts of evidence, plus the relevant
statutes, which should be somewhere in Penal, Corporations, Commercial,
or Public Resources.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
Since this is a criminal allegation and you are not
directly affected thereby, expect no remunerations
even if successful.
Happy hunting, but keep in mind filing false charges is also
criminal. :-)
> Frigging CERN costs a king's ransom,
> which is ok if it used to investigate Nature, but a waste of money
> if used to "prove" Einstein was correct when he wasn't.
The Large Hadron Collider already has a problem in
that it is assuming that a 7 TeV proton zooming around
a ring of 27km circumference takes 89 microseconds.
27km/89microseconds = c, give or take.
Since sqrt(7TeV / (1/2)(938MeV)) = 122 they should be zipping around
taking 730 nanoseconds.
Since there's talk of a Very Large Hadron Collider with a ring of
at least 100 km and a beam energy of 87.5 TeV, somebody's doing
some interesting things here with grant money.
This can't possibly be an unknown problem; the Bevatron had 6.3 GeV
protons back in the 1950's -- well above the lightspeed proton (Newtonian)
energy of (1/2)(938 MeV) = 469 MeV.
Why are we building bigger and bigger proton accelerators/synchrotrons?
Why would we need to?
I should note here that the Texas Superconducting
Supercollider is an illustration of total idiocy unrelated
to its theoretical beam parameters. It would have had a
circumference of 54 miles or 87 km -- and reportedly would
have cost less to *mothball* than to abort construction,
which is what Congress did. This is not to say that every
bevatron, synchrotron, and accelerator is stuffed with
graft, but this one had some major management problems
which were unrelated to the actual science.
[rest snipped]
Sorcerer
Fuzz out the spectral lines a bit into a continuous spectrum.
We do not see emission lines from the sun, only absorption lines
where the light has passed through outer layers of helium and
hydrogen.
Haefele and Keating? A fucking joke, bouncing a clock around
on a plane looking for the smallest change between that seemed
significant.
E = 1/2 m * 120^2c^2, don't mix Newtonian values with wrong relativistic
calculations.
In Earth's FoR, the muon travels 62 miles in 2.2 usec.
In the muon's FoR, the earth travels xi miles in tau seconds.
I'm not interested in the muon's opinion of Earth's speed and energy,
it doesn't have a clock of its a own, so quit frame hopping.
| A muon at rest has an energy equivalent of 105.66 MeV, give or take;
Prove it.
Yawn... Prove it.
As far as I'm concerned the distance is 62 miles in 2.2 usec
because that is what is claimed and I don't care about the muon's
opinion of the speed of Earth in the muon's frame of reference.
The Earth must be enormously time dilated, it has been around for
4,000,000,000 years without decaying. We are all traveling at light
speed in the frame of the muon.
Androcles.
vertv...@msn.com
> vertv...@msn.com wrote:
> > TIME DILATION
>
>
> The concept 'time dilation' is nothing but a logical construct. It
> follows from Einsteins two postulates:
>
> * The speed of light is always c. -In all systems, also when they are
> moving with different velocities!
>
> * All systems are equal (The same physical laws, which is not so
> strange.)
>
> I hope, that you agree with me, that 'time dilation' can be derived
> from the first postulate (if people believe in the first postulate or
> not.)
>
> PC
vergon
Yes, I agree. However, I am not concerned with HOW Al arrived at his
time dilation I only wanted to show that it was wrong. I did this by
showing that his time dilation was inconsistent in that a moving clock
had to keep BOTH proper time and slower time SIMULTANEOUSLY -- a
reductio ad absurdom.
Also it violate observation (empiricism) in as much as astronomers
observe clocks in the sky every night -- and the time rates are
different.
I also show that Doppler time, when applied to the Twin Paradox,
dissolves it completely and once and for all.
I firmly believe this is a significant contribution to relativistic
physics.
What is sad is the quality of the responses on this NG. These poor
Do-Do's just do not have a clue. If the quality of physics was in their
hands it would be a disaster. It's bad enough as it is.
Look at one example below. The jackass makes a stupid comment and then
snips the important part of the post as "superfluous". How stupid can
you get?
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Firstly, the article (theory) must be consistent both internally and
| with empiricism. If it isn't it is flawed.
It's flawed, we don't need any more.
Dirk Van de moortel
<vertv...@msn.com> wrote in message news:1155496742.0...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Indeed, more stupid than Androcles one cannot possibly get.
But your persistent efforts to beat him at it are truly heroic.
Dirk Vdm
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote
<GLKDg.89788$F8.8...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
Blackbody/thermal radiation. AFAIK such generates a continuous
spectrum, except for absorption lines in the hydrogen, helium, and
whatever else is in the Sun near the surface, resulting in the
Frauenhofer spectrum.
A small section of the spectrum in the blue-violet (?) region is
available at
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/sun/spectrum.html
for example.
The energy equivalence has the c^2 factor built in.
> In Earth's FoR, the muon travels 62 miles in 2.2 usec.
> In the muon's FoR, the earth travels xi miles in tau seconds.
If it travels 62 miles in 2.2 usec, that makes for a
velocity of about 150c, Newtonian, and an energy of
1.189 TeV.
The observed energy is barely 1/500th of that.
> I'm not interested in the muon's opinion of Earth's speed and energy,
> it doesn't have a clock of its a own, so quit frame hopping.
And the half-life of a muon at rest cannot be construed as an onboard
clock precisely why?
>
>
> | A muon at rest has an energy equivalent of 105.66 MeV, give or take;
>
> Prove it.
I lack the equipment and one cannot prove such anyway.
The best I can do is refer you to various measurements,
probably on the website http://physics.nist.gov somewhere,
indicating precisely how this derivation was carried out.
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mmuc2mev
indicates the current energy equivalent of the muon,
which is presumably fraudulent according to your theory;
the actual value should be more along the lines of 200 keV -- about
2/5 that of an electron:
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mec2mev
This of course plays merry hob with other observations relating to muons
substituting for electrons in hydrogen atoms (until they decay).
Prove what? That there's massive fraud in the LHC?
That the scientists are deluding themselves with the
measurements of the muon at 6 GeV instead of 3/4-1.1 TeV?
That a muon at rest is 105 MeV instead of 200 keV?
That time dilation occurs? That Newtonian energy is 1/2
m v^2 for some value of v?
> As far as I'm concerned the distance is 62 miles in 2.2 usec
> because that is what is claimed and I don't care about the muon's
> opinion of the speed of Earth in the muon's frame of reference.
Measurements using various equipment hoisted in balloons might be
of some assistance.
> The Earth must be enormously time dilated, it has been around for
> 4,000,000,000 years without decaying. We are all traveling at light
> speed in the frame of the muon.
4.551 Gy, and it's not quite lightspeed, just close. :-)
[rest snipped for brevity]
Sorcerer
[anip]
x', xi ?
Androcles
Henry Haapalainen
"Peter Christensen" <Pe...@MailAPS.org> kirjoitti
viestissä:1155473996.6...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Are you serious? Haven't you heard of red or blue shifts. It is the basic of
physics that wave-lengths do not change. What choice does that leave?
Henry Haapalainen
Stamenin
dedused from the
Lorentz transformation. This happens because the square root of the
Loretz transformation is placed on the denominator, and it dictates a
ban for considering these relations as beeing the inverse relations of
the former relations. This is the same a stange thing.
Sorcerer
" These lines are produced primarily in the photosphere. "
Relativists do not know what a square is.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/EnergySquare.htm
| > In Earth's FoR, the muon travels 62 miles in 2.2 usec.
| > In the muon's FoR, the earth travels xi miles in tau seconds.
|
| If it travels 62 miles in 2.2 usec, that makes for a
| velocity of about 150c, Newtonian, and an energy of
| 1.189 TeV.
|
| The observed energy is barely 1/500th of that.
Then you have the mass wrong. What IS mass?
|
| > I'm not interested in the muon's opinion of Earth's speed and energy,
| > it doesn't have a clock of its a own, so quit frame hopping.
|
| And the half-life of a muon at rest cannot be construed as an onboard
| clock precisely why?
|
Time is universal, the cuckoo transformations don't hold up mathematically.
Why on Earth should a muon be limited to the speed of a photon anyway?
Why not the speed of a turtle, the math is the same? Do a global edit
on specrel and change every occurance of "light" with "turtle" and
bingo, nothing can go faster than a turtle. Or you could change "light"
to "muon" instead. What is so special about light anyway, a photon
is just another elementary particle?
| >
| >
| > | A muon at rest has an energy equivalent of 105.66 MeV, give or take;
| >
| > Prove it.
|
| I lack the equipment and one cannot prove such anyway.
| The best I can do is refer you to various measurements,
| probably on the website http://physics.nist.gov somewhere,
| indicating precisely how this derivation was carried out.
We know how. Newtonian methods are not used, that stupid gamma
gets shoved in all the time. Apples weigh 10 kilograms each when
their speed is 0.9977c, we know that from the release of energy
when they hit. Never mind they are really traveling faster than c.
The arguments are circular and you can't weigh an apple when
its flying by. So you lack the equipment, so does everyone else
and you insist the mass is 10 Kilos per apple before it splattered.
Scrape up the pulp and weigh it and it's back to 100 grams again.
I don't buy it, it is bullshit calculation, nothing more.
The speed of the red ray is c, the speed of the black ray is c,
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Vectorvel.gif
the clock on my desk changes speed and the desk shrinks
lengthwise because I moved the paper as I pencilled in the
line. Crap.
|
| http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mmuc2mev
|
| indicates the current energy equivalent of the muon,
| which is presumably fraudulent according to your theory;
| the actual value should be more along the lines of 200 keV -- about
| 2/5 that of an electron:
|
| http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mec2mev
|
| This of course plays merry hob with other observations relating to muons
| substituting for electrons in hydrogen atoms (until they decay).
|
NIST fucked up when the meter was redefined. Now it is totally circular,
you cannot measure the speed of light in meters per second because
the meter is ct.
Dist = ct, three variables, pick one, find the other two. Bullshit.
Yes.
| That the scientists are deluding themselves with the
| measurements of the muon at 6 GeV instead of 3/4-1.1 TeV?
Yes.
| That a muon at rest is 105 MeV instead of 200 keV?
Yes.
In particular, I want the transverse mass and the longitudinal mass.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img155.gif
Thats what happens when you divide by zero.
| That time dilation occurs?
Yes.
That Newtonian energy is 1/2 | m v^2 for some value of v?
Yes. Prove them all to the satisfaction of mathematicians who are not
physicists.
|
| > As far as I'm concerned the distance is 62 miles in 2.2 usec
| > because that is what is claimed and I don't care about the muon's
| > opinion of the speed of Earth in the muon's frame of reference.
|
| Measurements using various equipment hoisted in balloons might be
| of some assistance.
|
| > The Earth must be enormously time dilated, it has been around for
| > 4,000,000,000 years without decaying. We are all traveling at light
| > speed in the frame of the muon.
|
| 4.551 Gy, and it's not quite lightspeed, just close. :-)
Prove it.
PD
That is incorrect. There is nothing that says that wavelengths do not
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote
<ktODg.41975$Ca....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
And...?
Of course we don't. We don't know what a zero-length vector is, either.
>
>
>
> | > In Earth's FoR, the muon travels 62 miles in 2.2 usec.
> | > In the muon's FoR, the earth travels xi miles in tau seconds.
> |
> | If it travels 62 miles in 2.2 usec, that makes for a
> | velocity of about 150c, Newtonian, and an energy of
> | 1.189 TeV.
> |
> | The observed energy is barely 1/500th of that.
>
> Then you have the mass wrong. What IS mass?
Ah, you want the mass of the muon. Well, that should be obvious. It's
200,000 eV * 1.602176462*10^-19 J/eV / (299792458^2) = 3.57 * 10^-31 kg.
(Granted, the conventional mass is 1.884 * 10^-28 kg. But the
conventional mass is obviously wrong since it is inconsistent with the
kinetic energy of a sea-level muon. This new value allows for
superluminal muons formed at 100 km and 2 GeV. Congratulations.
Note that there are some discrepancies with the new mass regarding
such things as cloud chamber measurements, but additional work can
probably be done in that area. I'll leave that to you.)
>
>
> |
> | > I'm not interested in the muon's opinion of Earth's speed and energy,
> | > it doesn't have a clock of its a own, so quit frame hopping.
> |
> | And the half-life of a muon at rest cannot be construed as an onboard
> | clock precisely why?
> |
> Time is universal, the cuckoo transformations don't hold up mathematically.
> Why on Earth should a muon be limited to the speed of a photon anyway?
> Why not the speed of a turtle, the math is the same? Do a global edit
> on specrel and change every occurance of "light" with "turtle" and
> bingo, nothing can go faster than a turtle. Or you could change "light"
> to "muon" instead. What is so special about light anyway, a photon
> is just another elementary particle?
>
>
> | >
> | >
> | > | A muon at rest has an energy equivalent of 105.66 MeV, give or take;
> | >
> | > Prove it.
> |
> | I lack the equipment and one cannot prove such anyway.
> | The best I can do is refer you to various measurements,
> | probably on the website http://physics.nist.gov somewhere,
> | indicating precisely how this derivation was carried out.
>
> We know how. Newtonian methods are not used, that stupid gamma
> gets shoved in all the time.
It's a conspiracy, as you well know.
> Apples weigh 10 kilograms each when
> their speed is 0.9977c, we know that from the release of energy
> when they hit. Never mind they are really traveling faster than c.
> The arguments are circular and you can't weigh an apple when
> its flying by. So you lack the equipment, so does everyone else
> and you insist the mass is 10 Kilos per apple before it splattered.
> Scrape up the pulp and weigh it and it's back to 100 grams again.
> I don't buy it, it is bullshit calculation, nothing more.
>
> The speed of the red ray is c, the speed of the black ray is c,
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Vectorvel.gif
> the clock on my desk changes speed and the desk shrinks
> lengthwise because I moved the paper as I pencilled in the
> line. Crap.
>
>
> |
> | http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mmuc2mev
> |
> | indicates the current energy equivalent of the muon,
> | which is presumably fraudulent according to your theory;
> | the actual value should be more along the lines of 200 keV -- about
> | 2/5 that of an electron:
> |
> | http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mec2mev
> |
> | This of course plays merry hob with other observations relating to muons
> | substituting for electrons in hydrogen atoms (until they decay).
> |
>
> NIST fucked up when the meter was redefined.
Big time. Feel free to submit a paper when your corrections are worked
out; they should be notified of the new mass of the muon, at least.
> Now it is totally circular,
> you cannot measure the speed of light in meters per second because
> the meter is ct.
Where t is 1/299792458th of a second, yes.
OK.
http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/library/special_collections/personal_papers/hoyle11/
>
> | That the scientists are deluding themselves with the
> | measurements of the muon at 6 GeV instead of 3/4-1.1 TeV?
>
> Yes.
Google coughed up nothing of interest on "erroneous muon mass".
>
> | That a muon at rest is 105 MeV instead of 200 keV?
>
> Yes.
> In particular, I want the transverse mass and the longitudinal mass.
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img155.gif
> Thats what happens when you divide by zero.
The new muon mass is about 3.57 * 10^-31 kg.
>
>
> | That time dilation occurs?
>
> Yes.
No data. At best, it's retreaded ground (the muon is occasionally used
in attempts to prove time dilation). At worst, it's completely meaningless.
>
> | That Newtonian energy is 1/2 | m v^2 for some value of v?
>
> Yes. Prove them all to the satisfaction of mathematicians who are not
> physicists.
Newtonian energy is distance multiplied by force. If a constant force
be applied to an object, the acceleration of that object is of course
F/m. The velocity of a constant acceleration is at = (F/m)t; the position
is then 1/2 a t^2 = 1/2 (F/m) t^2 by simple integration.
Because F is constant KE=1/2 (F/m) t^2 (F) = 1/2 (F^2/m)t^2.
Since v = (F/m)t one can express this as
KE = 1/2 (F^2/m^2) mt^2 = 1/2 m (v^2)
and the theorem is proved.
>
>
>
> |
> | > As far as I'm concerned the distance is 62 miles in 2.2 usec
> | > because that is what is claimed and I don't care about the muon's
> | > opinion of the speed of Earth in the muon's frame of reference.
> |
> | Measurements using various equipment hoisted in balloons might be
> | of some assistance.
> |
> | > The Earth must be enormously time dilated, it has been around for
> | > 4,000,000,000 years without decaying. We are all traveling at light
> | > speed in the frame of the muon.
> |
> | 4.551 Gy, and it's not quite lightspeed, just close. :-)
>
> Prove it.
Actually, we are traveling *beyond* lightspeed in the frame of the muon,
in case it hasn't occurred to you. As for Earth being 4.551 Gy, that
I'll have to leave to more competent sorts such as those at
http://www.talkorigins.org; U-238 and other such dating converge on that
point, roughly.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stamenin" <tas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1155510752.9...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Of course they can be deduced from the transformation.
Look, this is the transformation:
{ x' = ( x - v t ) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
{ t' = ( t - v x /c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
from which you get
{ Dx' = ( Dx - v Dt ) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
{ Dt' = ( Dt - v Dx /c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) .
For events satisfying Dx = 0 the last equation gives
Dt = Dt' sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Solving the system for Dx and Dt gives
{ Dx = ( Dx' + v Dt' ) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
{ Dt = ( Dt' + v Dx' /c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
For events satisfying Dx' = 0 the last equation gives
Dt' = Dt sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
So you see that the equations can be deduced from the
transformation.
Now you can try to make the exercise again:
If you take the equations together and write
{ Dt' = Dt sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
{ Dt = Dt' sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) ,
about which events are you talking and what
can they represent physically?
And how is this reflected purely by the equations?
Dirk Vdm
Sorcerer
[anip]
xi, x' ?
Androcles
Sorcerer
Nah.. just stupidity. People like you feed the fire. You think it is smart
to be sarcastic, when in reality you've checked the paper and found it
flawed. The morons haven't checked the paper. If it's a conspiracy you are
part of it, but I know you have only recently checked the paper and
were stupid before you did. You are still stupid, but now it is informed
stupidity which is even more stupid than before.
I've seen your posts to others, you want to appear smart but you cannot
fool me. I KNOW you are an arrogant cretin.
<yawn>
| > Now it is totally circular,
| > you cannot measure the speed of light in meters per second because
| > the meter is ct.
|
| Where t is 1/299792458th of a second, yes.
Cretin.
I know Hoyle proved it, I asked you to prove it.
| >
| > | That the scientists are deluding themselves with the
| > | measurements of the muon at 6 GeV instead of 3/4-1.1 TeV?
| >
| > Yes.
|
| Google coughed up nothing of interest on "erroneous muon mass".
Did you expect it to?
|
| >
| > | That a muon at rest is 105 MeV instead of 200 keV?
| >
| > Yes.
| > In particular, I want the transverse mass and the longitudinal mass.
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img155.gif
| > Thats what happens when you divide by zero.
|
| The new muon mass is about 3.57 * 10^-31 kg.
I'll just pop it on a balance scale and check... oops... it vanished.
Maybe it rolled under the sink... got another one?
|
| >
| >
| > | That time dilation occurs?
| >
| > Yes.
|
| No data. At best, it's retreaded ground (the muon is occasionally used
| in attempts to prove time dilation). At worst, it's completely
meaningless.
Uh huh...as you correctly point out, no data.
The same is true for Algol.
|
| >
| > | That Newtonian energy is 1/2 | m v^2 for some value of v?
| >
| > Yes. Prove them all to the satisfaction of mathematicians who are not
| > physicists.
|
| Newtonian energy is distance multiplied by force. If a constant force
| be applied to an object, the acceleration of that object is of course
| F/m.
All forces act between TWO or more bodies. There is no such animal as a
constant force producing constant acceleration. The nearest you'll get is
two
constant opposing forces and no acceleration, as I'm experiencing right
now as I sit in my chair. A rocket experiences a changing acceleration as
exhaust gases reduce the mass of the rocket, a comet experiences a
changing accleration as it nears or recedes from the sun.
There are no constant forces producing constant acceleration.
The velocity of a constant acceleration is at = (F/m)t; the position
| is then 1/2 a t^2 = 1/2 (F/m) t^2 by simple integration.
| Because F is constant KE=1/2 (F/m) t^2 (F) = 1/2 (F^2/m)t^2.
| Since v = (F/m)t one can express this as
|
| KE = 1/2 (F^2/m^2) mt^2 = 1/2 m (v^2)
|
| and the theorem is proved.
|
| >
| >
| >
| > |
| > | > As far as I'm concerned the distance is 62 miles in 2.2 usec
| > | > because that is what is claimed and I don't care about the muon's
| > | > opinion of the speed of Earth in the muon's frame of reference.
| > |
| > | Measurements using various equipment hoisted in balloons might be
| > | of some assistance.
| > |
| > | > The Earth must be enormously time dilated, it has been around for
| > | > 4,000,000,000 years without decaying. We are all traveling at light
| > | > speed in the frame of the muon.
| > |
| > | 4.551 Gy, and it's not quite lightspeed, just close. :-)
| >
| > Prove it.
|
| Actually, we are traveling *beyond* lightspeed in the frame of the muon,
| in case it hasn't occurred to you.
The Earth travels 62 miles in 2.2 usec in the frame of the muon.
Androcles.
| [rest snipped for brevity]
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote
<HhZDg.91576$F8.4...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
No, a second is reasonably well-defined. It's 91929631770 oscillations
of a certain transition of a Cs-133 atom in free-fall.
This measurement can be done anywhere.
I cannot prove it without additional data. For starters, fraud is
defined by criminal statutes, and I'm not at all familiar with French law.
If you want specific allegations, I'd have to dig.
>
>
> | >
> | > | That the scientists are deluding themselves with the
> | > | measurements of the muon at 6 GeV instead of 3/4-1.1 TeV?
> | >
> | > Yes.
> |
> | Google coughed up nothing of interest on "erroneous muon mass".
>
> Did you expect it to?
No. It's a conspiracy, after all; the problem has long since been
(mis)-defined by NIST and other standards bodies. You were born 60 or
so years too late. :-)
>
>
> |
> | >
> | > | That a muon at rest is 105 MeV instead of 200 keV?
> | >
> | > Yes.
> | > In particular, I want the transverse mass and the longitudinal mass.
> | > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img155.gif
> | > Thats what happens when you divide by zero.
> |
> | The new muon mass is about 3.57 * 10^-31 kg.
>
> I'll just pop it on a balance scale and check... oops... it vanished.
> Maybe it rolled under the sink... got another one?
> |
> | >
> | >
> | > | That time dilation occurs?
> | >
> | > Yes.
> |
> | No data. At best, it's retreaded ground (the muon is occasionally used
> | in attempts to prove time dilation). At worst, it's completely
> meaningless.
>
> Uh huh...as you correctly point out, no data.
> The same is true for Algol.
Conventional wisdom of Algol is that it is about 92.8 lightyears distant.
The parallax for this distance would be about
3*10^11 / (92.8*9.4605*10^15) = 341.71 nanoradians or 70
milliarcseconds. This should be possible to resolve using array
radioastronomy techniques.
SR is not required here.
>
>
> |
> | >
> | > | That Newtonian energy is 1/2 | m v^2 for some value of v?
> | >
> | > Yes. Prove them all to the satisfaction of mathematicians who are not
> | > physicists.
> |
> | Newtonian energy is distance multiplied by force. If a constant force
> | be applied to an object, the acceleration of that object is of course
> | F/m.
>
>
> All forces act between TWO or more bodies.
As you wish. The force is applied by a device attached to the Earth,
with a pull-cord of some sort. The mass is a frictionless cart.
> There is no such animal as a
> constant force producing constant acceleration. The nearest you'll get is
> two
> constant opposing forces and no acceleration, as I'm experiencing right
> now as I sit in my chair. A rocket experiences a changing acceleration as
> exhaust gases reduce the mass of the rocket, a comet experiences a
> changing accleration as it nears or recedes from the sun.
Depends on the throttling on the rocket. The Shuttle in particular has
to step down its throttle during its flight in the troposphere.
Solid fuel rockets have a "star" pattern, which burns into a circle;
this is less controllable but it still allows for the lessening of
thrust, as the fuel lessens in mass.
I will also refer you to the Tsiolkovsky Equation, which is easily
derivable from momentum considerations:
v_f = v_i + v_e * log(M_i/M_f)
> There are no constant forces producing constant acceleration.
Not for an infinite timeperiod, no. This is for a finite timeperiod.
>
>
> The velocity of a constant acceleration is at = (F/m)t; the position
> | is then 1/2 a t^2 = 1/2 (F/m) t^2 by simple integration.
> | Because F is constant KE=1/2 (F/m) t^2 (F) = 1/2 (F^2/m)t^2.
> | Since v = (F/m)t one can express this as
> |
> | KE = 1/2 (F^2/m^2) mt^2 = 1/2 m (v^2)
> |
> | and the theorem is proved.
> |
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | > |
> | > | > As far as I'm concerned the distance is 62 miles in 2.2 usec
> | > | > because that is what is claimed and I don't care about the muon's
> | > | > opinion of the speed of Earth in the muon's frame of reference.
> | > |
> | > | Measurements using various equipment hoisted in balloons might be
> | > | of some assistance.
> | > |
> | > | > The Earth must be enormously time dilated, it has been around for
> | > | > 4,000,000,000 years without decaying. We are all traveling at light
> | > | > speed in the frame of the muon.
> | > |
> | > | 4.551 Gy, and it's not quite lightspeed, just close. :-)
> | >
> | > Prove it.
> |
> | Actually, we are traveling *beyond* lightspeed in the frame of the muon,
> | in case it hasn't occurred to you.
>
> The Earth travels 62 miles in 2.2 usec in the frame of the muon.
> Androcles.
Exactly.
Sorcerer
[snip old material asked and answered]
| > | Where t is 1/299792458th of a second, yes.
| >
| > Cretin.
|
| No, a second is reasonably well-defined. It's 91929631770 oscillations
| of a certain transition of a Cs-133 atom in free-fall.
|
| This measurement can be done anywhere.
YES, You are a cretin.
I don't care how well the second is defined, the definition of the metre is
circular.
Allow to repeat what I said.
Now it is totally circular, you cannot measure the speed of light in meters
per second because the meter is ct.
So even if the speed of light (relative to the source) is 300,000 fingernail
widths
per second, my fingernails become one metre wide. This measurement can be
done
anywhere.
[snip old material asked and answered]
| > | > Yes.
| > |
| > | OK.
| > |
| > |
| >
http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/library/special_collections/personal_papers/hoyle11/
| > |
| >
| > I know Hoyle proved it, I asked you to prove it.
|
| I cannot prove it without additional data.
Then don't claim it as fact.
| For starters, fraud is
| defined by criminal statutes, and I'm not at all familiar with French law.
| If you want specific allegations, I'd have to dig.
Fraud is defined by a dictionary.
1 a : DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically : intentional perversion of truth
in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a
legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK
2 a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : IMPOSTOR;
also : one who defrauds : CHEAT b : one that is not what it seems or is
represented to be
synonym see DECEPTION, IMPOSTURE
| >
| > | >
| > | > | That the scientists are deluding themselves with the
| > | > | measurements of the muon at 6 GeV instead of 3/4-1.1 TeV?
| > | >
| > | > Yes.
| > |
| > | Google coughed up nothing of interest on "erroneous muon mass".
| >
| > Did you expect it to?
|
| No. It's a conspiracy, after all; the problem has long since been
| (mis)-defined by NIST and other standards bodies. You were born 60 or
| so years too late. :-)
Ok, you have no proof.
|
| >
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | > | That a muon at rest is 105 MeV instead of 200 keV?
| > | >
| > | > Yes.
| > | > In particular, I want the transverse mass and the longitudinal mass.
| > | >
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img155.gif
| > | > Thats what happens when you divide by zero.
| > |
| > | The new muon mass is about 3.57 * 10^-31 kg.
| >
| > I'll just pop it on a balance scale and check... oops... it vanished.
| > Maybe it rolled under the sink... got another one?
| > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | That time dilation occurs?
| > | >
| > | > Yes.
| > |
| > | No data. At best, it's retreaded ground (the muon is occasionally
used
| > | in attempts to prove time dilation). At worst, it's completely
| > meaningless.
| >
| > Uh huh...as you correctly point out, no data.
| > The same is true for Algol.
|
| Conventional wisdom of Algol is that it is about 92.8 lightyears distant.
| The parallax for this distance would be about
| 3*10^11 / (92.8*9.4605*10^15) = 341.71 nanoradians or 70
| milliarcseconds. This should be possible to resolve using array
| radioastronomy techniques.
|
| SR is not required here.
That doesn't prove Algol is eclipsed for 10 hours in every 70 hours
by an imaginary huge dark object taking up about a radian of it's 2 pi
radian orbit.
You like doing numbers so much, the separation of the dark object and
the star has to be less than 4.56 radii of the larger of the pair.
Given our KNOWLEDGE of Roche limits, it simply isn't possible.
However, because you enjoy numbers so much, I invite you to
calculate the doppler shift one expects to find from Algol and compare
it with known data. You may reasonably assume that Algol
is the same size as our sun for the purpose of this demonstration
of incompetence, either yours or the astronomers. Feel free to use
92.8 light years or whatever it is.
| > |
| > | >
| > | > | That Newtonian energy is 1/2 | m v^2 for some value of v?
| > | >
| > | > Yes. Prove them all to the satisfaction of mathematicians who are
not
| > | > physicists.
| > |
| > | Newtonian energy is distance multiplied by force. If a constant force
| > | be applied to an object, the acceleration of that object is of course
| > | F/m.
| >
| >
| > All forces act between TWO or more bodies.
|
| As you wish. The force is applied by a device attached to the Earth,
| with a pull-cord of some sort. The mass is a frictionless cart.
I do so wish. Gravity has an inverse square law.
|
| > There is no such animal as a
| > constant force producing constant acceleration. The nearest you'll get
is
| > two
| > constant opposing forces and no acceleration, as I'm experiencing right
| > now as I sit in my chair. A rocket experiences a changing acceleration
as
| > exhaust gases reduce the mass of the rocket, a comet experiences a
| > changing accleration as it nears or recedes from the sun.
|
| Depends on the throttling on the rocket. The Shuttle in particular has
| to step down its throttle during its flight in the troposphere.
That's because it is a changing mass and a changing force.
There is no such animal as a constant force producing constant acceleration.
|
| Solid fuel rockets have a "star" pattern, which burns into a circle;
| this is less controllable but it still allows for the lessening of
| thrust, as the fuel lessens in mass.
Lessening of thrust is a changing force.
There is no such animal as a constant force producing constant acceleration.
|
| I will also refer you to the Tsiolkovsky Equation, which is easily
| derivable from momentum considerations:
|
| v_f = v_i + v_e * log(M_i/M_f)
|
| > There are no constant forces producing constant acceleration.
|
| Not for an infinite timeperiod, no. This is for a finite timeperiod.
That's an approximation. Another approximation is 300,000 km/sec.
If you insist on being pedantic, be consistently pedantic.
Let's get back to the main point at the commencement of the discussion
and the thread title, "TIME DILATION"
xi = x' * gamma
tau = t /gamma
gamma = 1, not 1/(1-v^2/0^2), and gamma is even more superfluous than
the luminiferous aether.
Are we agreed?
Dork Van de merde is a shithead.
Are we agreed?
Exactly.
Androcles.
vertv...@msn.com
VERGON
Sorry, but your point (if there is one) is as clear as mud.
vertv...@msn.com
VERGON
Once and for all. The faster a rod travels, the shorter is the distance
between any two points. The sorter the distance, the less the
distance/time (velocity). The distance is always less than the proper
distance -- and the OBSERVED velocity is always less than the Proper
(or actual) velocity.
vertv...@msn.com
> M1TE&.#EA% `/`.<``````)F9F6=G9U5553,S,][>WLS,S!$1$:JJJHB(B'AX
> M>/___T1$1._O[R(B(KN[NP``````````````````````````````````````
> M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> M`````````````````````"'Y! $```L`+ `````4``\`0 AT`!<('$BPH,&!
> M`!@L$*# X(,`!0,0`)#0@$ '`!Q 7*# @<&$`P<`L'BPI$F2!$$*3+ 188&/
> M!PPT.."@@4F!#Q0`.*#@98 #"1_<'$K4)(*1!54*5-!R@8.&215R;+H`@=2H
> 3"B8*+:HR``"H0Y4:H&G38$ `.P``
> `
> end
VERGON
This stupid post is a superlengthy digression into nowhere -- and is
not even worth a one star rating.
vertv...@msn.com
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
VRGON
Can I help it you are too stupid to grasp the concepts I write?
Dirk Van de moortel
<vertv...@msn.com> wrote in message news:1155581607.5...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Yes, you can write your name in BIG LETTERS.
GOOD FOR YOU!
Dirk Vdm
vertv...@msn.com
VERGON
For a moment I thought you said that wave-lengths do not change.
Naw, NOBODY could be that stupid.
vertv...@msn.com
You forgot to measure the dimensions of the kitchen sink.
Sorcerer
<vertv...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1155581060.5...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Don't read it then, nobody is forcing you to. Fuck off instead, stupid.
Androcles
Sorcerer
<vertv...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1155583347....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Naw... I forgot to killfile a moron. Never mind, better late than never.
*plonk*
Androcles
|
Stamenin
transformation.
x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) (1).
t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).......(2)
which are the relations for obtaining the x' and t' on the train when
we know t and x on the railway, and the inverse relations then will be:
x=(x'+vt')/sqrt(i-v^2/c^2) ...........(3)
t=(t'+vx')/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)........(4)
Making the t=t2-t1 in relation (2) we'll obtain t'2-t'1 if x=cons. so
we,ll have:
Dt'=t'2-t'1=(t2-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)-(t1-vx/c^2)/qsrt)1-v^2/c^2)=(t2-t1)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or,
Dt'=Dt/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) ..........(5) and in a similar way from
the relation (4),
Dt=Dt'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)................(6).
If you like to get the inverse relations from the relations (5) and
(6) this is not permited, because such relations can't be obtain from
the Lorentz transformation. For that I said that here must be a ban to
not do such mistakes. Now if you repeatedly aply the relations (5) and
(6) you will obtain unlogical results which will grow as long as you
repeat the calculation. This is one of the reasons wy I concluded that
the Lorentz transformation is erronate mathematical relation. Another
way to show that the Lorentz transformation is mistaken is. if you in
the relations (2) and (4) make x and x' to take avery big value you
will obtain some very big jumps of the time t in the future and t' in
the past.
Sorcerer
Dirk Van de moortel writes crap he gets out of "Spacetime Physics".
When part of Einstein's paper was quoted to it, Dork Van de merde said
(and I quote)
"What is this?
Some kind of quote of some post?
An introduction to the shit you produce later on?
Shit that you expect someone will bother reading?"
clearly demonstrating its total and absolute ignorance of relativity
and its malicious character.
Dork Van de merde is a malicious ignorant troll without a clue. You are
not going to learn anything from it and it doesn't want to learn, it doesn't
know the difference between xi and x'.
Yes, the cuckoo transformations are erroneous, this is how they
were derived:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
Androcles.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stamenin" <tas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1155611528.2...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
which is equivalent with
Dt = Dt' sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
for Dx = 0 (like you say x=cons)
..........(5) and in a similar way from
> the relation (4),
> Dt=Dt'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)................(6).
which is equivalent with
Dt' = Dt sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
for Dx' = 0 (like you say x'=cons)
> If you like to get the inverse relations from the relations (5) and
> (6) this is not permited,
of course this is permitted.
If A = B/C then A C = B.
Where did you learn algebra?
> because such relations can't be obtain from
> the Lorentz transformation. For that I said that here must be a ban to
> not do such mistakes.
There is no mistake in writing the equations the way I did.
> Now if you repeatedly aply the relations (5) and
> (6) you will obtain unlogical results which will grow as long as you
> repeat the calculation.
If you really understand the meaning of the variables, then
there is nothing to repeatedly apply and no mistake to make.
> This is one of the reasons wy I concluded that
> the Lorentz transformation is erronate mathematical relation.
The reason is that you have missed an essential part, namely
the meaning of the variables.
So again, you can try to make the exercise:
If you take the equations together and write
{ Dt' = Dt sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) for Dx' = 0
{ Dt = Dt' sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) for Dx = 0 ,
about which events are you talking and what
can they represent physically?
And how is this reflected purely by the equations?
and in order to make it easier for you, I will write the
equations in your preferred form:
If you take the equations together and write
{ Dt = Dt' / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) for Dx' = 0
{ Dt' = Dt / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) for Dx = 0 ,
about which events are you talking and what
can they represent physically?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message news:jidEg.45837$Ca.1...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel writes crap he gets out of "Spacetime Physics".
>
> When part of Einstein's paper was quoted
quoted like this:
| >Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
| Newtonian >mechanics hold good.2 In order to render our presentation
| more precise and to >distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally
| from others which will be >introduced hereafter, we call it the
| ``stationary system.''
> to it, Dork Van de merde said
> (and I quote)
A honest person would also quote the original :-)
> "What is this?
> Some kind of quote of some post?
> An introduction to the shit you produce later on?
> Shit that you expect someone will bother reading?"
>
> clearly demonstrating its total and absolute ignorance of relativity
> and its malicious character.
Full story:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RegurShit.html
:-)
Dirk Vdm
Sorcerer
|
| "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
news:jidEg.45837$Ca.1...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >
| > Dirk Van de moortel writes crap he gets out of "Spacetime Physics".
| >
| > When part of Einstein's paper was quoted
|
| quoted like this:
| | >Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
| | Newtonian >mechanics hold good.2 In order to render our presentation
| | more precise and to >distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally
| | from others which will be >introduced hereafter, we call it the
| | ``stationary system.''
|
| > to it, Dork Van de merde said
| > (and I quote)
|
| A honest person would also quote the original :-)
An honest person wouldn't use x' in place of xi.
We know you are a lying incompetent tord. :-)
Androcles
Peter Christensen
vertv...@msn.com wrote:
> Peter Christensen wrote:
> > vertv...@msn.com wrote:
> > > TIME DILATION
> >
>
> >
> > follows from Einsteins two postulates:
> >
> > * The speed of light is always c. -In all systems, also when they are
> > moving with different velocities!
> >
> > * All systems are equal (The same physical laws, which is not so
> > strange.)
> >
> > I hope, that you agree with me, that 'time dilation' can be derived
> > from the first postulate (if people believe in the first postulate or
> > not.)
> >
> vergon
> Yes, I agree. However, I am not concerned with HOW Al arrived at his
> time dilation I only wanted to show that it was wrong. I did this by
> showing that his time dilation was inconsistent in that a moving clock
> had to keep BOTH proper time and slower time SIMULTANEOUSLY -- a
> reductio ad absurdom.
When assuming the speed of light postulate, then the time dilation can
be derived in for example one of these two ways:
(1) http://www.peterchristensen.eu/phys/pics/TimeDilation.gif
(2) http://www.peterchristensen.eu/phys/pics/TimeDilation2.gif
About (1): First the frame (A) is at rest, so that it takes the light
t_A =2*h/c to travel from the source and back to the detector. Frame B
is moving with the velocity v. The light is moving along the line l,
and because of the speed-of-light-postulate, it does so with the speed
c. This means, that t_B = 2*l/c. The rest is just geometry, l^2 = h^2 +
(t_B*v/2)^2, and to solve the equations shown on the figure. In frame A
the time for the light to return to the detector is t_A, and in frame B
it is t_B = gamma*t_A. This means Time Dilation with a factor of gamma.
About (2): Just another way to derive the same result. In frame B, the
light will be travelling with an 'effective velocity' of only c_B =
Sqrt[c^2-v^2] while travelling the distance 2*h. -Because the light
doesn't go directly in the y-direction from source to mirror and then
back to the detector. This method gives the same result, but maybe it
is a bit more confusing than the first method. -Again the result is a
time dilation in frame B, because t_B = gamma*t_A just as before.
PC
__________________________________
Worth to remember: (:-)
In your own frame things are greatest (Length
Contraction) and fastest (Time Dilation)...
Stamenin
and 4). I consider that these relations are valid and for the
description of the motion of a material body with a mass (m) and the
coordinates x in the coordinate system let say K atached to the
railways and the coordinate x' in the coordinate system K' atached to
the train. The t and t' are zero when the two coordinate systems are
superposed. When we know the coordinates x and t we can calculate x'
and t' with the relations 1) and 2). The invers passing we can do with
the relations 3) and 4). So we can conclude tha the relations 1) and 2)
are the inverse relations to the relations 3) and 4) and not 1) with 3)
or 2) with 4).
That is why we can't do the changes with Dt and Dt'.
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote
<d52Eg.96043$9d4....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
That is correct. The speed of light can now never be measured; it is by
definition 299792458 m/s because the meter is 1/299792458th of the
length that light travels in 1 second. Entirely, completely, and
to some extent uselessly circular.
>
> So even if the speed of light (relative to the source) is 300,000 fingernail
> widths
> per second, my fingernails become one metre wide. This measurement can be
> done
> anywhere.
That it can, but you must have very big fingers in that case.
>
>
> [snip old material asked and answered]
>
> | > | > Yes.
> | > |
> | > | OK.
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/library/special_collections/personal_papers/hoyle11/
> | > |
> | >
> | > I know Hoyle proved it, I asked you to prove it.
> |
> | I cannot prove it without additional data.
>
> Then don't claim it as fact.
>
> | For starters, fraud is
> | defined by criminal statutes, and I'm not at all familiar with French law.
> | If you want specific allegations, I'd have to dig.
>
> Fraud is defined by a dictionary.
> 1 a : DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically : intentional perversion of truth
> in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a
> legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK
> 2 a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : IMPOSTOR;
> also : one who defrauds : CHEAT b : one that is not what it seems or is
> represented to be
> synonym see DECEPTION, IMPOSTURE
Fraud is also defined by criminal statutes. A district attorney, such
as the Los Angeles Country District Attorney, is probably more
interested in the specific charges -- and the punishments required
thereby -- than dictionary definitions.
>
>
>
>
> | >
> | > | >
> | > | > | That the scientists are deluding themselves with the
> | > | > | measurements of the muon at 6 GeV instead of 3/4-1.1 TeV?
> | > | >
> | > | > Yes.
> | > |
> | > | Google coughed up nothing of interest on "erroneous muon mass".
> | >
> | > Did you expect it to?
> |
> | No. It's a conspiracy, after all; the problem has long since been
> | (mis)-defined by NIST and other standards bodies. You were born 60 or
> | so years too late. :-)
>
> Ok, you have no proof.
Correct. There is no proof here. NIST measured, possibly
mismeasured, the muon; that's all one can state.
I was referring to system-to-Earth distance, not component distance.
> You like doing numbers so much, the separation of the dark object and
> the star has to be less than 4.56 radii of the larger of the pair.
> Given our KNOWLEDGE of Roche limits, it simply isn't possible.
Depends to some extent on the composition of the dark object, does it
not?
>
> However, because you enjoy numbers so much, I invite you to
> calculate the doppler shift one expects to find from Algol and compare
> it with known data. You may reasonably assume that Algol
> is the same size as our sun for the purpose of this demonstration
> of incompetence, either yours or the astronomers. Feel free to use
> 92.8 light years or whatever it is.
The period of Algol A and B is 2.87 days or 248000 seconds, give or
take. Since its semimajor axis is given as 0.00218 arc-seconds,
or 10.569 nanoradians, and its distance as 92.8 light years,
one gets 10.569 * 92.8 nanolightyears or 31 light-seconds. In
more conventional terms that's 0.062 AU. Assuming a circular orbit
that's a path of 0.3884 AU every 248000 seconds, or 235 km/s
or 7.84 * 10^-4 c.
If we observe a sodium line in still space at 570 nm, the shift
caused by this orbital motion should be on the order of 0.447 nm,
regardless of which theory one employs.
>
>
>
> | > |
> | > | >
> | > | > | That Newtonian energy is 1/2 | m v^2 for some value of v?
> | > | >
> | > | > Yes. Prove them all to the satisfaction of mathematicians who are
> not
> | > | > physicists.
> | > |
> | > | Newtonian energy is distance multiplied by force. If a constant force
> | > | be applied to an object, the acceleration of that object is of course
> | > | F/m.
> | >
> | >
> | > All forces act between TWO or more bodies.
> |
> | As you wish. The force is applied by a device attached to the Earth,
> | with a pull-cord of some sort. The mass is a frictionless cart.
>
> I do so wish. Gravity has an inverse square law.
>
> |
> | > There is no such animal as a
> | > constant force producing constant acceleration. The nearest you'll get
> is
> | > two
> | > constant opposing forces and no acceleration, as I'm experiencing right
> | > now as I sit in my chair. A rocket experiences a changing acceleration
> as
> | > exhaust gases reduce the mass of the rocket, a comet experiences a
> | > changing accleration as it nears or recedes from the sun.
> |
> | Depends on the throttling on the rocket. The Shuttle in particular has
> | to step down its throttle during its flight in the troposphere.
>
> That's because it is a changing mass and a changing force.
> There is no such animal as a constant force producing constant acceleration.
Certainly not in the case of the Shuttle.
>
>
> |
> | Solid fuel rockets have a "star" pattern, which burns into a circle;
> | this is less controllable but it still allows for the lessening of
> | thrust, as the fuel lessens in mass.
>
> Lessening of thrust is a changing force.
> There is no such animal as a constant force producing constant acceleration.
You've made your point.
>
> |
> | I will also refer you to the Tsiolkovsky Equation, which is easily
> | derivable from momentum considerations:
> |
> | v_f = v_i + v_e * log(M_i/M_f)
> |
> | > There are no constant forces producing constant acceleration.
> |
> | Not for an infinite timeperiod, no. This is for a finite timeperiod.
>
> That's an approximation. Another approximation is 300,000 km/sec.
> If you insist on being pedantic, be consistently pedantic.
No. That's your job. :-P
(NONEXISTENT)
> "TIME DILATION"
>
> xi = x' * gamma
> tau = t /gamma
>
> gamma = 1, not 1/(1-v^2/0^2), and gamma is even more superfluous than
> the luminiferous aether.
> Are we agreed?
Yes, for purposes of this discussion. After all, I'm still not entirely
sure what your theory will predict for various phenomena.
>
> Dork Van de merde is a shithead.
> Are we agreed?
No, mostly because it's not all that germane to physics.
> Exactly.
>
> Androcles.
>
>
>
>
> begin 666 pixt.gif
> K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``/___P```"'Y! $```$`+ `````!``$```("3 $`.P``
> `
> end
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stamenin" <tas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1155690017.6...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Of course we can.
If A/B = C then A C = B.
But wait, I'll help you out of this problem.
Try to reread what follows here below and I'll add a comment
and a question at the end...
>> >> Of course they can be deduced from the transformation.
>> >> Look, this is the transformation:
>> >> { x' = ( x - v t ) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> >> { t' = ( t - v x /c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> >> from which you get
>> >> { Dx' = ( Dx - v Dt ) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> >> { Dt' = ( Dt - v Dx /c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) .
>> >> For events satisfying Dx = 0 the last equation gives
>> >> Dt = Dt' sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> >>
>> > I don't thik so, let take the basic relations of the Lorentz
>> > transformation.
>> > x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) (1).
>> > t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).......(2)
>> > which are the relations for obtaining the x' and t' on the train when
>> > we know t and x on the railway, and the inverse relations then will be:
>> > x=(x'+vt')/sqrt(i-v^2/c^2) ...........(3)
>> > t=(t'+vx')/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)........(4)
>> > Making the t=t2-t1 in relation (2) we'll obtain t'2-t'1 if x=cons. so
>> > we,ll have:
>> >
>> > Dt'=t'2-t'1=(t2-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)-(t1-vx/c^2)/qsrt)1-v^2/c^2)=(t2-t1)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> > or,
>> > Dt'=Dt/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) ..........(5)
>>
>> which is equivalent with
>> Dt = Dt' sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> for Dx = 0 (like you say x=cons)
>>
So we have the equations
{ Dt = Dt' / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) for events with Dx' = 0
{ Dt' = Dt / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) for events with Dx = 0 ,
which is of course fully equivalent with
{ Dt' = Dt sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) for events with Dx' = 0
{ Dt = Dt' sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) for events with Dx = 0 ,
just like
A/B = C
is, provided B <> 0, fully equivalent with
A C = B.
So now you see that a set of equations are valid for events
with both Dx' = 0 and Dx = 0.
From one of the original equations
Dx' = ( Dx - v Dt ) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
you see that this implies that
Dt = 0
From the other original equation
Dx = ( Dx' + v Dt' ) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
you see that this implies that
Dt' = 0.
So you see that the equations
{ Dt = Dt' / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
{ Dt' = Dt / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
are only valid if
Dx = Dt = Dx' = Dt' = 0
And therefore you *can* indeed like you say,
"repeatedly apply the relations (5) and (6)" and make
in mistakes. You see, the relations
{ Dt = Dt' / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
{ Dt' = Dt / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
{ Dt' = Dt sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
{ Dt = Dt' sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
are *only* valid for events that satisfy
Dt = Dt' = 0,
so they all say the same thing:
0 = 0 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
0 = 0 sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
which is of course just
0 = 0.
For numeric example, suppose
v = 0.5
Event_1 : ( t, x, y, z ) = ( 3, 5, 7, 2 )
Event_2 : ( t, x, y, z ) = ( 3, 5, 4, 3 )
You have
( Dt, Dx, Dy, Dz ) = ( 0, 0, -3, 1 )
Use the transformation equations to find
( Dt', Dx', Dy', Dz' ) = ( 0, 0, -3, 1 )
and you see that indeed all the equations
{ Dt = Dt' / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
{ Dt' = Dt / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
{ Dt' = Dt sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
{ Dt = Dt' sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
just reduce to
0 = 0
and no error is made when one "repeatedly applies them"
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stamenin" <tas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1155690017.6...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Of course we can.
If A = B / C then B = A C
But wait, I'll help you out of this problem.
Try to reread what follows here below and I'll add a comment
and a question at the end...
>> >> Of course they can be deduced from the transformation.
>> >> Look, this is the transformation:
>> >> { x' = ( x - v t ) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> >> { t' = ( t - v x /c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> >> from which you get
>> >> { Dx' = ( Dx - v Dt ) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> >> { Dt' = ( Dt - v Dx /c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) .
>> >> For events satisfying Dx = 0 the last equation gives
>> >> Dt = Dt' sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> >>
>> > I don't thik so, let take the basic relations of the Lorentz
>> > transformation.
>> > x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) (1).
>> > t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).......(2)
>> > which are the relations for obtaining the x' and t' on the train when
>> > we know t and x on the railway, and the inverse relations then will be:
>> > x=(x'+vt')/sqrt(i-v^2/c^2) ...........(3)
>> > t=(t'+vx')/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)........(4)
>> > Making the t=t2-t1 in relation (2) we'll obtain t'2-t'1 if x=cons. so
>> > we,ll have:
>> >
>> > Dt'=t'2-t'1=(t2-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)-(t1-vx/c^2)/qsrt)1-v^2/c^2)=(t2-t1)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> > or,
>> > Dt'=Dt/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) ..........(5)
>>
>> which is equivalent with
>> Dt = Dt' sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> for Dx = 0 (like you say x=cons)
>>
So we have the equations
{ Dt = Dt' / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) for events with Dx' = 0
{ Dt' = Dt / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) for events with Dx = 0 ,
which is of course fully equivalent with
{ Dt' = Dt sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) for events with Dx' = 0
{ Dt = Dt' sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) for events with Dx = 0 ,
just like
A = B / C
is, provided C <> 0, fully equivalent with
B = A C
So now you see that a set of equations are valid for events
with both Dx' = 0 and Dx = 0.
From one of the original equations
Dx' = ( Dx - v Dt ) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
you see that this implies that
Dt = 0
From the other original equation
Dx = ( Dx' + v Dt' ) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
you see that this implies that
Dt' = 0.
So you see that the equations
{ Dt = Dt' / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
{ Dt' = Dt / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
are only valid if
Dx = Dt = Dx' = Dt' = 0
And therefore you *can* indeed like you say,
"repeatedly apply the relations (5) and (6)" and make
in mistakes. You see, the relations
{ Dt = Dt' / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
{ Dt' = Dt / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
{ Dt' = Dt sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
{ Dt = Dt' sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
are *only* valid for events that satisfy
Dt = Dt' = 0,
so they all say the same thing:
0 = 0 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
0 = 0 sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
which is of course just
0 = 0.
For numeric example, suppose
v = 0.5
Event_1 : ( t, x, y, z ) = ( 3, 5, 7, 2 )
Event_2 : ( t, x, y, z ) = ( 3, 5, 4, 3 )
You have
( Dt, Dx, Dy, Dz ) = ( 0, 0, -3, 1 )
Use the transformation equations to find
( Dt', Dx', Dy', Dz' ) = ( 0, 0, -3, 1 )
and you see that indeed all the equations
{ Dt = Dt' / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
{ Dt' = Dt / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
{ Dt' = Dt sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
{ Dt = Dt' sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
just reduce to
0 = 0
and no error is made when one "repeatedly applies them"
Sorcerer
Some kind of quote of some post?
An introduction to the shit you produce later on?
Shit that you expect someone will bother reading?
xi, x'?
Androcles
Sorcerer
Some kind of quote of some post?
An introduction to the shit you produce later on?
Shit that you expect someone will bother reading?"
Sorcerer
Probably:
Function: adverb
: insofar as seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected : without
much doubt <is probably happy> <it will probably rain>
Probably the Los Angeles countRy District Attorney lives in the county
of Los Angeles and is probably not interested in prosecuting a dead man
based on this allegation first levelled against Ptolemy.
This is the story of a scientific crime. I mean a crime committed by a
scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics
and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of
fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.
Einstein developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they
were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he
deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every
scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it
is a crime against science and scholarship. -- Sir Isaac Newton.
Substitution of "Einstein" for "Ptolemy" by Androcles.
|
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > | That the scientists are deluding themselves with the
| > | > | > | measurements of the muon at 6 GeV instead of 3/4-1.1 TeV?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Yes.
| > | > |
| > | > | Google coughed up nothing of interest on "erroneous muon mass".
| > | >
| > | > Did you expect it to?
| > |
| > | No. It's a conspiracy, after all; the problem has long since been
| > | (mis)-defined by NIST and other standards bodies. You were born 60 or
| > | so years too late. :-)
| >
| > Ok, you have no proof.
|
| Correct. There is no proof here. NIST measured, possibly
| mismeasured, the muon; that's all one can state.
Probably the Los Angeles CountRy District Attorney would demand proof of
conspiracy. I certainly would. Perhaps he was born 60 years too late.
How will you measure it without SR? Radar is used to measure speed,
but the acronym is for RAdio Detecting And Ranging
|
| > You like doing numbers so much, the separation of the dark object and
| > the star has to be less than 4.56 radii of the larger of the pair.
| > Given our KNOWLEDGE of Roche limits, it simply isn't possible.
|
| Depends to some extent on the composition of the dark object, does it
| not?
I could be diamond, I suppose. Probably is, we like "probably".
We could start a company, "Deep Space Diamond Mines Inc."
I doubt it has been cut yet, but we'll make a fortune from the chips alone.
|
| >
| > However, because you enjoy numbers so much, I invite you to
| > calculate the doppler shift one expects to find from Algol and compare
| > it with known data. You may reasonably assume that Algol
| > is the same size as our sun for the purpose of this demonstration
| > of incompetence, either yours or the astronomers. Feel free to use
| > 92.8 light years or whatever it is.
|
| The period of Algol A and B is 2.87 days or 248000 seconds, give or
| take. Since its semimajor axis is given as 0.00218 arc-seconds,
| or 10.569 nanoradians,
Ahem.. angular measure for distance? How does that work?
I want the semi major axis of the AlgolA- AlgolB system,
not the Earth-Sol distance.
| and its distance as 92.8 light years,
Ahem... Please use parsecs, we do not yet know the speed of
light from Algol. The baseline of the triangle is 93,000,000 miles
or so, the angle to the apex (Algol) is 0.00218 arc seconds,
tan (90 degees - 0.00218")
= tan( 89.999999394444444444444444444444)
= 94616883.599585480493751481795527
which gives a distance of 8799370174761449.685918887806984 miles.
Light travels supposedly at 186,000 mps, so it takes
47308441799.792740246875740897763 seconds to reach us,
which 1500 years or so. Where do you get 92.8?
| one gets 10.569 * 92.8 nanolightyears or 31 light-seconds. In
| more conventional terms that's 0.062 AU. Assuming a circular orbit
| that's a path of 0.3884 AU every 248000 seconds, or 235 km/s
| or 7.84 * 10^-4 c.
|
| If we observe a sodium line in still space at 570 nm, the shift
| caused by this orbital motion should be on the order of 0.447 nm,
| regardless of which theory one employs.
Where is the published data you gathered?
I do not have a theory. All theories are the work of others.
I have an axiom, 1+1 = 2, which is is not (1+1)/(1 + [1*1] /1^2 ) = 1
as Einstein's theory claims.
When I employ that axiom to light, c+v, I get the light curve of Algol.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
I also get a beat frequency from Sagnac.
|
| >
| > Dork Van de merde is a shithead.
| > Are we agreed?
|
| No, mostly because it's not all that germane to physics.
But Dork thinks x' is xi and tries to teach SR. Isn't that germane to
physics?
| > Exactly.
| >
| > Androcles.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stamenin" <tas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1155690017.6...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> I wrote the relations of the Lorentz transformation noted with 1) 2) 3)
> and 4). I consider that these relations are valid and for the
> description of the motion of a material body with a mass (m) and the
> coordinates x in the coordinate system let say K atached to the
> railways and the coordinate x' in the coordinate system K' atached to
> the train. The t and t' are zero when the two coordinate systems are
> superposed. When we know the coordinates x and t we can calculate x'
> and t' with the relations 1) and 2). The invers passing we can do with
> the relations 3) and 4). So we can conclude tha the relations 1) and 2)
> are the inverse relations to the relations 3) and 4) and not 1) with 3)
> or 2) with 4).
> That is why we can't do the changes with Dt and Dt'.
By the way, while I wait for your reply to my yesterday's
message (the one with Dt = Dt' = 0, remember), ... you say
we can't combine (1) with (3) or (2) with (4).
Look, from your numbered equations below we have:
x' = (x-v t) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) (1).
t' = (t-v x/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).......(2)
x = (x'+v t') / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) ...........(3)
t = (t'+v x'/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)........(4)
Write (1) and (3) as
g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x' = g ( x - v t ) (1).
x = g ( x' + v t' ) (3).
put (3) in (1) and you get:
x' = g ( g ( x' + v t' ) - v t )
<==> x' = g^2 x' + g^2 v t' - g v t
<==> x' ( 1 - g^2 ) = g v ( g t' - t )
<==> x' ( 1 - 1/(1-v^2/c^2) ) = g v ( g t' - t )
<==> x' ( - v^2/c^2 / (1-v^2/c^2) ) = g v ( g t' - t )
<==> - x' v^2/c^2 g^2 = g v ( g t' - t )
<==> - g v x' / c^2 = g t' - t
<==> t = g t' + g v /c^2 x'
<==> t = g ( t' + v x' / c^2 )
<==> t = ( t' + v x' / c^2 ) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
which is your equation (4)
Magic? No, just algebra. Okay?
Exercises below.
>
>> >> Of course they can be deduced from the transformation.
>> >> Look, this is the transformation:
>> >> { x' = ( x - v t ) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> >> { t' = ( t - v x /c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> >> from which you get
>> >> { Dx' = ( Dx - v Dt ) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> >> { Dt' = ( Dt - v Dx /c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) .
>> >> For events satisfying Dx = 0 the last equation gives
>> >> Dt = Dt' sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> >>
>> > I don't thik so, let take the basic relations of the Lorentz
>> > transformation.
>> > x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) (1).
>> > t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).......(2)
>> > which are the relations for obtaining the x' and t' on the train when
>> > we know t and x on the railway, and the inverse relations then will be:
>> > x=(x'+vt')/sqrt(i-v^2/c^2) ...........(3)
>> > t=(t'+vx')/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)........(4)
Likewise, you can take *any* two equations from the system
(1), (2), (3), (4), and simply deduce the remaining two equations.
Exercise_1: what happens when you combine (2) and (4)?
Exercise_2: what happens when you combine (1) and (4)?
Dirk Vdm
Sorcerer
|
| "Stamenin" <tas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155690017.6...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
|
| [snip]
|
Ok, snip .. I thought it was [anip].
x', xi?
Androcles
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote
<nH5Fg.4632$fV1....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
This is all mathematical crap anyway. You want *physical* proof.
The best I can do is an experimental cite such as:
* Herbert E. Ives and G.R. Stilwell, "An experimental study of
the rate of a moving clock"
J. Opt. Soc. Am 28 215-226 (1938) and part II. J. Opt.
Soc. Am. 31, 369-374 (1941)
Unfortunately, throwing this at Google just returned me back to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_Doppler_effect
(where I got this from), which isn't all that good an explanation IMO.
(I'm not sure how to better it without throwing in a lot of what might
be considered irrelevant calculations, though, leading to the other
formula sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c) or its reciprocal.)
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote
<ZZEEg.100148$F8.3...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
He would merely require sufficient evidence that would
allow him to think he can prove a case of fraud to a jury
of John Baez's peers beyond a reasonable doubt, as required
by the law.
One possibility for instance would be certain bank checks
paid to him from various research institutions, accompanied
by a letter stipulating that these checks are "hush money"
so that he doesn't blab to the world that Newton was right
all along, invalidating more than a century of SR-based
research.
(Of course, the DA will want to cross-check with the banks
and the alleged letter writer, in this case.)
Other possibilities might also work.
> I certainly would. Perhaps he was born 60 years too late.
Perhaps. I've never met him personally.
Radar can measure velocity and position, to a certain accuracy.
However, for Algol I'd probably use parallax.
>
> |
> | > You like doing numbers so much, the separation of the dark object and
> | > the star has to be less than 4.56 radii of the larger of the pair.
> | > Given our KNOWLEDGE of Roche limits, it simply isn't possible.
> |
> | Depends to some extent on the composition of the dark object, does it
> | not?
>
> I could be diamond, I suppose. Probably is, we like "probably".
> We could start a company, "Deep Space Diamond Mines Inc."
> I doubt it has been cut yet, but we'll make a fortune from the chips alone.
One would have to work out the transport problem first. It is, after
all, quite a distance. It may or may not be 92.8 light years, but it's
definitely farther than the Voyager probes.
>
>
>
> |
> | >
> | > However, because you enjoy numbers so much, I invite you to
> | > calculate the doppler shift one expects to find from Algol and compare
> | > it with known data. You may reasonably assume that Algol
> | > is the same size as our sun for the purpose of this demonstration
> | > of incompetence, either yours or the astronomers. Feel free to use
> | > 92.8 light years or whatever it is.
> |
> | The period of Algol A and B is 2.87 days or 248000 seconds, give or
> | take. Since its semimajor axis is given as 0.00218 arc-seconds,
> | or 10.569 nanoradians,
>
> Ahem.. angular measure for distance? How does that work?
How would you expect it to work? Take two points A and B some
distance apart and a third point O representing one's eyeball
or telescope. The lines OA and OB describe an angle. That
angle defines similar triangles, depending on the distance (roughly)
between O and A (or between O and B). There are of course some
issues if AB is not nearly perpendicular to OA and OB; usually
it's not a major problem.
> I want the semi major axis of the AlgolA- AlgolB system,
> not the Earth-Sol distance.
You'll need Earth-Algol and angular deviation to measure periastron
and apastron of the orbit. Given those one can compute semimajor
axis.
That's where parallax comes in.
>
>
> | and its distance as 92.8 light years,
>
> Ahem... Please use parsecs, we do not yet know the speed of
> light from Algol.
As you wish. A parsec is the distance from Earth such that
the observed parallax is 2/3600th of a degree (2 seconds).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsec
> The baseline of the triangle is 93,000,000 miles
> or so, the angle to the apex (Algol) is 0.00218 arc seconds,
> tan (90 degees - 0.00218")
>= tan( 89.999999394444444444444444444444)
>= 94616883.599585480493751481795527
> which gives a distance of 8799370174761449.685918887806984 miles.
> Light travels supposedly at 186,000 mps,
No, it does not! Light travels at a variable speed, in the
theory you are apparently using. Even if one is measuring
from an unmoving source, if the temperature of that source
is nonzero one will expect a variance. For a star that
variance will be about a few hundred to a few thousand m/s.
> so it takes
> 47308441799.792740246875740897763 seconds to reach us,
> which 1500 years or so. Where do you get 92.8?
I get it from the literature. I do not state it is correct; I have no
method of proving it correct. (Nor does anyone else; one can merely
show evidence that it might be correct.)
In any event, your computation is incorrect; the angle
given is not the parallax of the center-of-mass as observed
from Earth during a 6-month gap, but the (maximum) angle
of the two stars as observed from Earth.
>
>
> | one gets 10.569 * 92.8 nanolightyears or 31 light-seconds. In
> | more conventional terms that's 0.062 AU. Assuming a circular orbit
> | that's a path of 0.3884 AU every 248000 seconds, or 235 km/s
> | or 7.84 * 10^-4 c.
> |
> | If we observe a sodium line in still space at 570 nm, the shift
> | caused by this orbital motion should be on the order of 0.447 nm,
> | regardless of which theory one employs.
>
> Where is the published data you gathered?
I have none; this is a theoretical calculation only.
OK, so what is your computation for the distance of Algol's
center-of-mass from Sol? Or are you going to stick with
your ~500 parsec distance?
>
>
>
> |
> | >
> | > Dork Van de merde is a shithead.
> | > Are we agreed?
> |
> | No, mostly because it's not all that germane to physics.
>
> But Dork thinks x' is xi and tries to teach SR. Isn't that germane to
> physics?
No. That's germane to Dirk's teaching methods.
>
> | > Exactly.
> | >
> | > Androcles.
Sorcerer
| In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
| <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
| wrote
| on Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:01:55 GMT
| <nH5Fg.4632$fV1....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
| >
| > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
| > in message news:oP4Fg.27115$Hn3.4...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
| > |
| > | "Stamenin" <tas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1155690017.6...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | [snip]
| > |
| >
| > Ok, snip .. I thought it was [anip].
| >
| > x', xi?
| >
| > Androcles
| >
|
| This is all mathematical crap anyway. You want *physical* proof.
I already have all the physical proof I need.
Sagnac and V 1493 Aql will do very nicely.
If a $7 greenback were a blankback, it woud be an invalid banknote
that any American would recognise even without President Einstein's
portrait on the front.
Half the analysis of
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/eq22.A.GIF
is missing, so as you say, mathematical crap.
If these so-called physicists are so darned clever, how come they
are blind?
|
| The best I can do is an experimental cite such as:
|
| * Herbert E. Ives and G.R. Stilwell, "An experimental study of
| the rate of a moving clock"
|
| J. Opt. Soc. Am 28 215-226 (1938) and part II. J. Opt.
| Soc. Am. 31, 369-374 (1941)
|
| Unfortunately, throwing this at Google just returned me back to
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_Doppler_effect
|
| (where I got this from), which isn't all that good an explanation IMO.
|
| (I'm not sure how to better it without throwing in a lot of what might
| be considered irrelevant calculations, though, leading to the other
| formula sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c) or its reciprocal.)
You should look at the transverse mass effect.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img155.gif
All this crap should tell a sane man something is seriously wrong with
Einstein's math. Any normal mathematical investigator (not a genius)
should be able to trace it.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
Make one error, it propagates. Einstein made many. There can be
no relationship between reality and the ravings of a lunatic.
Androcles.
Sorcerer
The bottom line is still the jury, and each juror must act according
to his own conscience.
One cannot prosecute the entire German nation for the crimes against
humanity of Hitler or the entire scientific community for the crimes
against science of Einstein, one must select only those that profit from
it.
At best that tells you where a point of light is, nothing more, and
you still need SR, the entire distance is length contracted when the
Archangel Michelson demonstrates before God and Son Inc., Universe
Builders, an enormous interferometer experiment assisted by the Angel
Morley using a corner reflector at epsilon Eridani and a beam splitter
that Michelson will carry between his wings. Angel wings are a
requirement for flying through aether.
| > | > You like doing numbers so much, the separation of the dark object
and
| > | > the star has to be less than 4.56 radii of the larger of the pair.
| > | > Given our KNOWLEDGE of Roche limits, it simply isn't possible.
| > |
| > | Depends to some extent on the composition of the dark object, does it
| > | not?
| >
| > I could be diamond, I suppose. Probably is, we like "probably".
| > We could start a company, "Deep Space Diamond Mines Inc."
| > I doubt it has been cut yet, but we'll make a fortune from the chips
alone.
|
| One would have to work out the transport problem first. It is, after
| all, quite a distance. It may or may not be 92.8 light years, but it's
| definitely farther than the Voyager probes.
Would you stop being so practical? I'm trying to build castles in the air
here the way Einstein did. I don't care about mundane details like
transport,
I want greedy investors. Let's make the promise, get the money in and worry
about transport later. We can always spend it and die before the transport
is sorted.
|
| >
| >
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | > However, because you enjoy numbers so much, I invite you to
| > | > calculate the doppler shift one expects to find from Algol and
compare
| > | > it with known data. You may reasonably assume that Algol
| > | > is the same size as our sun for the purpose of this demonstration
| > | > of incompetence, either yours or the astronomers. Feel free to use
| > | > 92.8 light years or whatever it is.
| > |
| > | The period of Algol A and B is 2.87 days or 248000 seconds, give or
| > | take. Since its semimajor axis is given as 0.00218 arc-seconds,
| > | or 10.569 nanoradians,
| >
| > Ahem.. angular measure for distance? How does that work?
|
| How would you expect it to work? Take two points A and B some
| distance apart and a third point O representing one's eyeball
| or telescope. The lines OA and OB describe an angle. That
| angle defines similar triangles, depending on the distance (roughly)
| between O and A (or between O and B). There are of course some
| issues if AB is not nearly perpendicular to OA and OB; usually
| it's not a major problem.
It's a major problem if you can't see the dark giant diamond. It
doesn't shine in the dark the way Algol does.
|
| > I want the semi major axis of the AlgolA- AlgolB system,
| > not the Earth-Sol distance.
|
| You'll need Earth-Algol and angular deviation to measure periastron
| and apastron of the orbit. Given those one can compute semimajor
| axis.
|
| That's where parallax comes in.
So you compute semimajor axis by knowing the distance to something
you can't see so that you can compute the distance?
Very clever. Amazing how it all fits the theory, what?
If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
|
| >
| >
| > | and its distance as 92.8 light years,
| >
| > Ahem... Please use parsecs, we do not yet know the speed of
| > light from Algol.
|
| As you wish. A parsec is the distance from Earth such that
| the observed parallax is 2/3600th of a degree (2 seconds).
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsec
|
| > The baseline of the triangle is 93,000,000 miles
| > or so, the angle to the apex (Algol) is 0.00218 arc seconds,
| > tan (90 degees - 0.00218")
| >= tan( 89.999999394444444444444444444444)
| >= 94616883.599585480493751481795527
| > which gives a distance of 8799370174761449.685918887806984 miles.
| > Light travels supposedly at 186,000 mps,
|
| No, it does not! Light travels at a variable speed, in the
| theory you are apparently using.
I said supposedly. Anyway, the entire distance is length contracted
in the theory you are using.
Even if one is measuring
| from an unmoving source,
Algol and Sol are zipping along through empty space going around
the galaxy together, source and observer are both moving. That's
why we need Archangel Michelson to help measure the distance,
it is length contracted. c is c in empty space, independent of the
motion of Algol, remember?
| if the temperature of that source
| is nonzero one will expect a variance. For a star that
| variance will be about a few hundred to a few thousand m/s.
A piffling detail. "light is always propagated in empty space with a
definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body." Einstein said so. It's a POSTULATE.
"Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that this propagation
takes place in straight lines with a velocity c = 300,000 km./sec. At all
events we know with great exactness that this velocity is the same for all
colours, because if this were not the case, the minimum of emission would
not be observed simultaneously for different colours during the eclipse of a
fixed star by its dark neighbour." --- SEE? Einstein said so:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
"Great exactness". Fucking great bullshit, I'm not a child at school.
He wrote that in 1920, SEVEN YEARS after Sagnac showed a different result.
Have you ever studied the spectrum of a recurrent nova?
http://www.astroman.fsnet.co.uk/novaql.htm
You can see with great exactness the broadening of the spectral lines
which is with great exactness what one would expect for multiple speeds
of light.
| > so it takes
| > 47308441799.792740246875740897763 seconds to reach us,
| > which 1500 years or so. Where do you get 92.8?
|
| I get it from the literature. I do not state it is correct; I have no
| method of proving it correct. (Nor does anyone else; one can merely
| show evidence that it might be correct.)
That's my whole point. The fucking data is massaged to fit the theory
and nobody questions it. You get some clever sod who writes a paper
after he's done something he thinks his professor will approve, and
the professor pats him on the back and awards him a doctorate, nobody
checks. Certainly not the professor, all he's doing is stirring the shit
and collecting a paycheck.
|
| In any event, your computation is incorrect; the angle
| given is not the parallax of the center-of-mass as observed
| from Earth during a 6-month gap, but the (maximum) angle
| of the two stars as observed from Earth.
So the distance is 3000 ly. <shrug>
Parallax only works for the closest stars anyway, and 0.00218 arc
seconds is bullshit; you can't measure an angle that small, its a hair's
thickness a mile away because a hair is 0.038368 inches thick
and I can fiddle data better than you, but I have enough experience
with a micrometer to know a human hair is less than 0.010" thick.
Do you?
38 thou is a large gap for spark plug, and you are NOT going to
measure it from a mile away whatever the computation is.
|
| >
| >
| > | one gets 10.569 * 92.8 nanolightyears or 31 light-seconds. In
| > | more conventional terms that's 0.062 AU. Assuming a circular orbit
| > | that's a path of 0.3884 AU every 248000 seconds, or 235 km/s
| > | or 7.84 * 10^-4 c.
| > |
| > | If we observe a sodium line in still space at 570 nm, the shift
| > | caused by this orbital motion should be on the order of 0.447 nm,
| > | regardless of which theory one employs.
| >
| > Where is the published data you gathered?
|
| I have none; this is a theoretical calculation only.
That is bullshit, man. Fraud. Cooking the books.
I'm honest: I don't know and I won't guess. I'll use the best
estimate available, apparent magnitude. It's 30 parsecs, +/- 20
and that is as close as I can honestly provide. If you have better
data I'll examine it, but I'm certainly not taking 98.4 LY or whatever
you claim.
| > | >
| > | > Dork Van de merde is a shithead.
| > | > Are we agreed?
| > |
| > | No, mostly because it's not all that germane to physics.
| >
| > But Dork thinks x' is xi and tries to teach SR. Isn't that germane to
| > physics?
|
| No. That's germane to Dirk's teaching methods.
His teaching methods are fraudulent and he gets pissed off when
challenged, tries to make a fool of others by writing them up on his web
page. He isn't serious about physics, all he wants to do is promote himself
as a great thinker which he isn't and can never be. The guy is troll, all
troll
and nothing but the troll.
He takes his cue from Roberts, who says
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant."
That is disgusting, it shows the mentality of a cretin who gets involved
with the relativity FAQs.
Androcles
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote
<4ggFg.109209$F8.3...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
> news:s4vfr3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> | In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
> | <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
> | wrote
> | on Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:01:55 GMT
> | <nH5Fg.4632$fV1....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
> | >
> | > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
> wrote
> | > in message news:oP4Fg.27115$Hn3.4...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> | > |
> | > | "Stamenin" <tas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > news:1155690017.6...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> | > |
> | > | [snip]
> | > |
> | >
> | > Ok, snip .. I thought it was [anip].
> | >
> | > x', xi?
> | >
> | > Androcles
> | >
> |
> | This is all mathematical crap anyway. You want *physical* proof.
>
> I already have all the physical proof I need.
> Sagnac and V 1493 Aql will do very nicely.
OK. Write a paper and submit it to _Nature_. That's about all that's
required, really.
>
> If a $7 greenback were a blankback, it woud be an invalid banknote
> that any American would recognise even without President Einstein's
> portrait on the front.
>
> Half the analysis of
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/eq22.A.GIF
> is missing, so as you say, mathematical crap.
> If these so-called physicists are so darned clever, how come they
> are blind?
>
>
> |
> | The best I can do is an experimental cite such as:
> |
> | * Herbert E. Ives and G.R. Stilwell, "An experimental study of
> | the rate of a moving clock"
> |
> | J. Opt. Soc. Am 28 215-226 (1938) and part II. J. Opt.
> | Soc. Am. 31, 369-374 (1941)
> |
> | Unfortunately, throwing this at Google just returned me back to
> |
> | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_Doppler_effect
> |
> | (where I got this from), which isn't all that good an explanation IMO.
> |
> | (I'm not sure how to better it without throwing in a lot of what might
> | be considered irrelevant calculations, though, leading to the other
> | formula sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c) or its reciprocal.)
>
> You should look at the transverse mass effect.
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img155.gif
> All this crap should tell a sane man something is seriously wrong with
> Einstein's math. Any normal mathematical investigator (not a genius)
> should be able to trace it.
That's easy. Einstein made the fundamental mistake that lightspeed is
constant.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
> Make one error, it propagates. Einstein made many. There can be
> no relationship between reality and the ravings of a lunatic.
>
> Androcles.
>
>
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote
<xtiFg.110788$F8.5...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
You want to build castles? Find some green elephants and a giant
turtle.
(Hey, it worked for Terry Pratchett.)
> I want greedy investors. Let's make the promise, get the money in and worry
> about transport later. We can always spend it and die before the transport
> is sorted.
OK, so your business plan is to build a faster-than-light transport that
would loop to Sirius and back, then?
>
> |
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | > |
> | > | >
> | > | > However, because you enjoy numbers so much, I invite you to
> | > | > calculate the doppler shift one expects to find from Algol and
> compare
> | > | > it with known data. You may reasonably assume that Algol
> | > | > is the same size as our sun for the purpose of this demonstration
> | > | > of incompetence, either yours or the astronomers. Feel free to use
> | > | > 92.8 light years or whatever it is.
> | > |
> | > | The period of Algol A and B is 2.87 days or 248000 seconds, give or
> | > | take. Since its semimajor axis is given as 0.00218 arc-seconds,
> | > | or 10.569 nanoradians,
> | >
> | > Ahem.. angular measure for distance? How does that work?
> |
> | How would you expect it to work? Take two points A and B some
> | distance apart and a third point O representing one's eyeball
> | or telescope. The lines OA and OB describe an angle. That
> | angle defines similar triangles, depending on the distance (roughly)
> | between O and A (or between O and B). There are of course some
> | issues if AB is not nearly perpendicular to OA and OB; usually
> | it's not a major problem.
>
> It's a major problem if you can't see the dark giant diamond. It
> doesn't shine in the dark the way Algol does.
Not really. We've found planets by measuring starwobble.
>
>
> |
> | > I want the semi major axis of the AlgolA- AlgolB system,
> | > not the Earth-Sol distance.
> |
> | You'll need Earth-Algol and angular deviation to measure periastron
> | and apastron of the orbit. Given those one can compute semimajor
> | axis.
> |
> | That's where parallax comes in.
>
> So you compute semimajor axis by knowing the distance to something
> you can't see so that you can compute the distance?
Who says we can't see Algol? It's quite visible; it was
called the Demon Star or some such long ago. I wouldn't
want to measure the parallax to the Dark Object, of course,
but measuring parallax to the star system is easy enough,
in theory.
> Very clever. Amazing how it all fits the theory, what?
> If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
>
>
>
> |
> | >
> | >
> | > | and its distance as 92.8 light years,
> | >
> | > Ahem... Please use parsecs, we do not yet know the speed of
> | > light from Algol.
> |
> | As you wish. A parsec is the distance from Earth such that
> | the observed parallax is 2/3600th of a degree (2 seconds).
> |
> | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsec
> |
> | > The baseline of the triangle is 93,000,000 miles
> | > or so, the angle to the apex (Algol) is 0.00218 arc seconds,
> | > tan (90 degees - 0.00218")
> | >= tan( 89.999999394444444444444444444444)
> | >= 94616883.599585480493751481795527
> | > which gives a distance of 8799370174761449.685918887806984 miles.
> | > Light travels supposedly at 186,000 mps,
> |
> | No, it does not! Light travels at a variable speed, in the
> | theory you are apparently using.
>
> I said supposedly. Anyway, the entire distance is length contracted
> in the theory you are using.
Only if things are moving.
>
> Even if one is measuring
> | from an unmoving source,
>
> Algol and Sol are zipping along through empty space going around
> the galaxy together, source and observer are both moving. That's
> why we need Archangel Michelson to help measure the distance,
> it is length contracted. c is c in empty space, independent of the
> motion of Algol, remember?
c is not c in empty space; it cannot *be* c in empty space.
It is c+v, where v is a spread of velocities (v_rms = sqrt(3kt/m)).
This is obvious to anyone who understands hot gas.
>
>
>
> | if the temperature of that source
> | is nonzero one will expect a variance. For a star that
> | variance will be about a few hundred to a few thousand m/s.
>
> A piffling detail. "light is always propagated in empty space with a
> definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
> emitting body." Einstein said so. It's a POSTULATE.
Only in SR and GR. Since these theories are clearly
fraudulent (by your logic) one has to fall back on
Newton/Galileo, unless you want to explore Wilsonian speed
decay, Savain's lattice, or Kenseto's E-matrix.
>
> "Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that this propagation
> takes place in straight lines with a velocity c = 300,000 km./sec.
Yes, indoctrination in school works *very* well. Trust no one.
> At all
> events we know with great exactness that this velocity is the same for all
> colours,
Only in vacuum. Prisms and rainbows otherwise.
> because if this were not the case, the minimum of emission would
> not be observed simultaneously for different colours during the eclipse of a
> fixed star by its dark neighbour." --- SEE? Einstein said so:
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
>
> "Great exactness". Fucking great bullshit, I'm not a child at school.
Excellent! Then you understand that c measurements must show a variance
from a hot source, in Newtonian theory.
>
> He wrote that in 1920, SEVEN YEARS after Sagnac showed a different result.
>
> Have you ever studied the spectrum of a recurrent nova?
>
> http://www.astroman.fsnet.co.uk/novaql.htm
>
> You can see with great exactness the broadening of the spectral lines
> which is with great exactness what one would expect for multiple speeds
> of light.
>
>
>
>
> | > so it takes
> | > 47308441799.792740246875740897763 seconds to reach us,
> | > which 1500 years or so. Where do you get 92.8?
> |
> | I get it from the literature. I do not state it is correct; I have no
> | method of proving it correct. (Nor does anyone else; one can merely
> | show evidence that it might be correct.)
>
> That's my whole point. The fucking data is massaged to fit the theory
> and nobody questions it. You get some clever sod who writes a paper
> after he's done something he thinks his professor will approve, and
> the professor pats him on the back and awards him a doctorate, nobody
> checks. Certainly not the professor, all he's doing is stirring the shit
> and collecting a paycheck.
And SR is required for a simple geometric/parallax measurement precisely
why?
>
>
>
> |
> | In any event, your computation is incorrect; the angle
> | given is not the parallax of the center-of-mass as observed
> | from Earth during a 6-month gap, but the (maximum) angle
> | of the two stars as observed from Earth.
>
> So the distance is 3000 ly. <shrug>
> Parallax only works for the closest stars anyway, and 0.00218 arc
> seconds is bullshit; you can't measure an angle that small, its a hair's
> thickness a mile away because a hair is 0.038368 inches thick
> and I can fiddle data better than you, but I have enough experience
> with a micrometer to know a human hair is less than 0.010" thick.
> Do you?
> 38 thou is a large gap for spark plug, and you are NOT going to
> measure it from a mile away whatever the computation is.
>
>
>
> |
> | >
> | >
> | > | one gets 10.569 * 92.8 nanolightyears or 31 light-seconds. In
> | > | more conventional terms that's 0.062 AU. Assuming a circular orbit
> | > | that's a path of 0.3884 AU every 248000 seconds, or 235 km/s
> | > | or 7.84 * 10^-4 c.
> | > |
> | > | If we observe a sodium line in still space at 570 nm, the shift
> | > | caused by this orbital motion should be on the order of 0.447 nm,
> | > | regardless of which theory one employs.
> | >
> | > Where is the published data you gathered?
> |
> | I have none; this is a theoretical calculation only.
>
> That is bullshit, man. Fraud. Cooking the books.
Yes, it is. Verification of this datum would be difficult for me
personally.
So 30 parsecs = 3000 light years. Interesting.
>
> | > | >
> | > | > Dork Van de merde is a shithead.
> | > | > Are we agreed?
> | > |
> | > | No, mostly because it's not all that germane to physics.
> | >
> | > But Dork thinks x' is xi and tries to teach SR. Isn't that germane to
> | > physics?
> |
> | No. That's germane to Dirk's teaching methods.
>
> His teaching methods are fraudulent and he gets pissed off when
> challenged, tries to make a fool of others by writing them up on his web
> page.
Alleged teaching methods, then.
> He isn't serious about physics, all he wants to do is promote himself
> as a great thinker which he isn't and can never be. The guy is troll, all
> troll
> and nothing but the troll.
> He takes his cue from Roberts, who says
> "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant."
This is not physics. This is at best an information transmission
medium, commonly known as Usenet. Your measurements are more physics
than my pontifications. (You have measured the Demon Star, I take it.)
>
> That is disgusting, it shows the mentality of a cretin who gets involved
> with the relativity FAQs.
So write a FAQ and submit it. Shouldn't be too hard. It merely needs
to survive peer review.
Your English is good enough (if one gets rid of the four-letters).
Should not be a problem.
>
> Androcles
Sorcerer
I don't subscribe to Nature, nor am I required to do so.
You write a paper instead.
It should have been easy, but you missed it for years until I rubbed
your nose in it and you are still blabbing away about how to measure
fundamental particle energy as if you had a clue. Isn't it time you wised
up?
He did much worse than make a fundamental blunder, he built a theory
on it to fold in his crackpot ideas about time, too. Researchers have
missed finding information in astronomy and particle physics for 100
years because of the arrogant cunt.
The very least you could do is spread the word around the newsgroups,
you were certainly sarcastic enough before.
You lot are like a bunch a sheep, all bleating the same baaaa, all eating
the same grass and all swallowing each other's shit.
If I've woken just one of you up I've achieved something.
Sorcerer
Good grief no. I'm not planning on building anything except hope of a
new Shangri La. Hope for common sense is a false hope.
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | > However, because you enjoy numbers so much, I invite you to
| > | > | > calculate the doppler shift one expects to find from Algol and
| > compare
| > | > | > it with known data. You may reasonably assume that Algol
| > | > | > is the same size as our sun for the purpose of this
demonstration
| > | > | > of incompetence, either yours or the astronomers. Feel free to
use
| > | > | > 92.8 light years or whatever it is.
| > | > |
| > | > | The period of Algol A and B is 2.87 days or 248000 seconds, give
or
| > | > | take. Since its semimajor axis is given as 0.00218 arc-seconds,
| > | > | or 10.569 nanoradians,
| > | >
| > | > Ahem.. angular measure for distance? How does that work?
| > |
| > | How would you expect it to work? Take two points A and B some
| > | distance apart and a third point O representing one's eyeball
| > | or telescope. The lines OA and OB describe an angle. That
| > | angle defines similar triangles, depending on the distance (roughly)
| > | between O and A (or between O and B). There are of course some
| > | issues if AB is not nearly perpendicular to OA and OB; usually
| > | it's not a major problem.
| >
| > It's a major problem if you can't see the dark giant diamond. It
| > doesn't shine in the dark the way Algol does.
|
| Not really. We've found planets by measuring starwobble.
Algol wobbles, that's how I found planet Androcles.
The thing is Algol is a little further away so the wobble can't be seen
directly, you have to work it out from the light curve. It would have
to wobble anyway if it had a Wilson Cool Heavy for a companion.
That guy is enough to make me wobble. delta-Cepheus wobbles too,
it has planet Cassandra, because Cassandra spoke truth but was
not believed. Polaris has Wendy, named for my daughter. All stars
revolve around Polaris, or at least seem to.
|
| >
| >
| > |
| > | > I want the semi major axis of the AlgolA- AlgolB system,
| > | > not the Earth-Sol distance.
| > |
| > | You'll need Earth-Algol and angular deviation to measure periastron
| > | and apastron of the orbit. Given those one can compute semimajor
| > | axis.
| > |
| > | That's where parallax comes in.
| >
| > So you compute semimajor axis by knowing the distance to something
| > you can't see so that you can compute the distance?
|
| Who says we can't see Algol? It's quite visible; it was
| called the Demon Star or some such long ago.
Correct, but we can't see the solid diamond "Wilson Cool Heavy"
that eclipses it for 10 hours in every 70.
Or maybe it just an ordinary jovian planet a bit further away... Nah..
its gotta be a big diamond up real close.
| I wouldn't
| want to measure the parallax to the Dark Object, of course,
| but measuring parallax to the star system is easy enough,
| in theory.
In theory, theory and practise are the same. In practise, they are
very different.
| > Very clever. Amazing how it all fits the theory, what?
| > If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
| >
| >
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | and its distance as 92.8 light years,
| > | >
| > | > Ahem... Please use parsecs, we do not yet know the speed of
| > | > light from Algol.
| > |
| > | As you wish. A parsec is the distance from Earth such that
| > | the observed parallax is 2/3600th of a degree (2 seconds).
| > |
| > | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsec
| > |
| > | > The baseline of the triangle is 93,000,000 miles
| > | > or so, the angle to the apex (Algol) is 0.00218 arc seconds,
| > | > tan (90 degees - 0.00218")
| > | >= tan( 89.999999394444444444444444444444)
| > | >= 94616883.599585480493751481795527
| > | > which gives a distance of 8799370174761449.685918887806984 miles.
| > | > Light travels supposedly at 186,000 mps,
| > |
| > | No, it does not! Light travels at a variable speed, in the
| > | theory you are apparently using.
| >
| > I said supposedly. Anyway, the entire distance is length contracted
| > in the theory you are using.
|
| Only if things are moving.
The galaxy is rotating. Algol has to be moving anyway if it has a companion.
Since the aether is an absolute frame of reference but doesn't exist
we'll have to length contract the distance to Algol as per MMX.
|
| >
| > Even if one is measuring
| > | from an unmoving source,
| >
| > Algol and Sol are zipping along through empty space going around
| > the galaxy together, source and observer are both moving. That's
| > why we need Archangel Michelson to help measure the distance,
| > it is length contracted. c is c in empty space, independent of the
| > motion of Algol, remember?
|
| c is not c in empty space; it cannot *be* c in empty space.
| It is c+v, where v is a spread of velocities (v_rms = sqrt(3kt/m)).
|
| This is obvious to anyone who understands hot gas.
Einstein understood hot air, he was full of it. So do the sheople, they
can all bleat to one tune.
What I will say about it is that the velocity of light in a medium is
affected and space is cold next to the hot gas, so there is a gradient
between photosphere and the space beyond, both temperature and
pressure. Molecules form and fall back under the star's gravity.
Some escape, of course, that's the solar wind.
That shell severely limits the light velocity spread, but the velocity
relative to the observer of the star as a whole is not limited.
What you describe gives rise to the continuous spectrum, the shell
is where absorption takes place
| >
| > | if the temperature of that source
| > | is nonzero one will expect a variance. For a star that
| > | variance will be about a few hundred to a few thousand m/s.
| >
| > A piffling detail. "light is always propagated in empty space with a
| > definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
| > emitting body." Einstein said so. It's a POSTULATE.
|
| Only in SR and GR. Since these theories are clearly
| fraudulent (by your logic) one has to fall back on
| Newton/Galileo, unless you want to explore Wilsonian speed
| decay, Savain's lattice, or Kenseto's E-matrix.
No thanks, I'll stick with Newton and Galileo. I like their logic.
Wilson's entire unification theory is based on his modelling all orbits
edge on rather than tilted. The old chap is getting past it, I'm afraid.
He doesn't realise he's lose all doppler shift with that idea.
The other two are just dingbats.
| >
| > "Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that this
propagation
| > takes place in straight lines with a velocity c = 300,000 km./sec.
|
| Yes, indoctrination in school works *very* well. Trust no one.
If schoolteachers knew anything they'd not be schoolteachers.
I couldn't stand it, year after year going over the same stuff with a
another class.
|
| > At all
| > events we know with great exactness that this velocity is the same for
all
| > colours,
|
| Only in vacuum. Prisms and rainbows otherwise.
|
| > because if this were not the case, the minimum of emission would
| > not be observed simultaneously for different colours during the eclipse
of a
| > fixed star by its dark neighbour." --- SEE? Einstein said so:
| >
| > http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
| >
| > "Great exactness". Fucking great bullshit, I'm not a child at school.
|
| Excellent! Then you understand that c measurements must show a variance
| from a hot source, in Newtonian theory.
Of course, and they do until they hit the stellar atmosphere.
|
| >
| > He wrote that in 1920, SEVEN YEARS after Sagnac showed a different
result.
| >
| > Have you ever studied the spectrum of a recurrent nova?
| >
| > http://www.astroman.fsnet.co.uk/novaql.htm
| >
| > You can see with great exactness the broadening of the spectral lines
| > which is with great exactness what one would expect for multiple speeds
| > of light.
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > | > so it takes
| > | > 47308441799.792740246875740897763 seconds to reach us,
| > | > which 1500 years or so. Where do you get 92.8?
| > |
| > | I get it from the literature. I do not state it is correct; I have no
| > | method of proving it correct. (Nor does anyone else; one can merely
| > | show evidence that it might be correct.)
| >
| > That's my whole point. The fucking data is massaged to fit the theory
| > and nobody questions it. You get some clever sod who writes a paper
| > after he's done something he thinks his professor will approve, and
| > the professor pats him on the back and awards him a doctorate, nobody
| > checks. Certainly not the professor, all he's doing is stirring the shit
| > and collecting a paycheck.
|
| And SR is required for a simple geometric/parallax measurement precisely
| why?
It's a giant MMX, you need length contraction and time dilation to make the
velocity of light c again because the star is moving at 235 km/sec, you
said.
"Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that this propagation
takes place in straight lines with a velocity c = 300,000 km./sec.", not
c = 300,235 km/sec. Change the distance, change the angle.
Well, at least you've stopped being sarcastic. I'm still a little
tongue-in-cheek.
Of course not, I used your faked data.
| >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Dork Van de merde is a shithead.
| > | > | > Are we agreed?
| > | > |
| > | > | No, mostly because it's not all that germane to physics.
| > | >
| > | > But Dork thinks x' is xi and tries to teach SR. Isn't that germane
to
| > | > physics?
| > |
| > | No. That's germane to Dirk's teaching methods.
| >
| > His teaching methods are fraudulent and he gets pissed off when
| > challenged, tries to make a fool of others by writing them up on his web
| > page.
|
| Alleged teaching methods, then.
| > He isn't serious about physics, all he wants to do is promote himself
| > as a great thinker which he isn't and can never be. The guy is troll,
all
| > troll
| > and nothing but the troll.
| > He takes his cue from Roberts, who says
| > "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant."
|
| This is not physics. This is at best an information transmission
| medium, commonly known as Usenet. Your measurements are more physics
| than my pontifications. (You have measured the Demon Star, I take it.)
I did see the spectrum, but it's a four hour drive to get it again and
I can't find it on the web. The minimum is ok in the light curve, you
can find plenty of that. The secondary minimum is a little more suspect,
another Martian canal.
| > That is disgusting, it shows the mentality of a cretin who gets
involved
| > with the relativity FAQs.
|
| So write a FAQ and submit it. Shouldn't be too hard. It merely needs
| to survive peer review.
|
| Your English is good enough (if one gets rid of the four-letters).
| Should not be a problem.
Oh sure... People believe what they want to believe. Try it, start
telling them Einstein got it wrong and see the wrath descend over
you like a black cloud. It's worse than saying evolution is correct
in the bible belt.
Androcles
YBM
> If I've woken just one of you up I've achieved something.
You'd better try to achieve mastering of basic algebra...
(cf.
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Doofus.html )
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote
<b_lFg.112613$F8....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
Why would *I* want to do so? It's your fame.
No. In any event you have yet to submit experimental
results consistent with the hypothesis. So far, as far
as I can tell, your hypothesis/results are that:
- ground level muons are measured at 2 GeV
- they are created 100 km up
- therefore, muons are 200 keV at rest
- and are superluminal
Muons are reasily enough created in the lab, and can be
measured therein. The third should be easy to verify.
The second will probably require a balloon and an
instrumentation package.
As for the fourth, you'll probably need to build a particle
accelerator and try to accelerate a particle. The LHC,
Bevatron, and a few other accelerators all have the same
fundamental problem: they make the assumption that their
beam bunches are slower than lightspeed. This can be
attributed either to Einstein's theory (the traditional
explanation) or to the simple fact of brehmsstrahlung,
or synchrotron radiation, leaking away sufficient energy
to slow down the particle. I don't know, and have not
computed the latter.
>
> He did much worse than make a fundamental blunder, he built a theory
> on it to fold in his crackpot ideas about time, too. Researchers have
> missed finding information in astronomy and particle physics for 100
> years because of the arrogant cunt.
>
> The very least you could do is spread the word around the newsgroups,
> you were certainly sarcastic enough before.
I am not a physicist.
Sorcerer
Ok. Remain ignorant, it's no skin off my nose.
| In any event you have yet to submit experimental
| results consistent with the hypothesis. So far, as far
| as I can tell, your hypothesis/results are that:
|
| - ground level muons are measured at 2 GeV
Electron volt is a measure of charge, 1.0000 eV per electron by definition.
Why are you trying to hoodwink me into thinking charge is energy?
Isn't it time you wised up?
| - they are created 100 km up
So it is claimed by shitheaded relativists. I see no reason why I
shouldn't use their data against them, its a fair fight that way.
If you prefer, muons are created 600 metres up.
Isn't it time you wised up?
| - therefore, muons are 200 keV at rest
Electron volt is a measure of charge, 1.0000 eV per electron by definition.
Why are you trying to hoodwink me into thinking charge is energy?
Isn't it time you wised up?
| - and are superluminal
They originate 600 metres up. Definitely subluminal.
Isn't it time you wised up?
| Muons are reasily enough created in the lab, and can be
| measured therein. The third should be easy to verify.
Those are domesticated muons. I'm talking about wild, feral muons
that originate 600 metres up and drop dead after 2.2 usec because
they are subluminal, same as domestic muons.
| The second will probably require a balloon and an
| instrumentation package.
Hmm... well, there are domesticated muons that originate 600 meters
above the balloon, but they are dead before the hit the ground and
don't trigger scintillators. It's the wild muons that make it to sea level,
or so the shithead relativists tell me.
Still, you go play with your balloon, I'm not buying your shit.
| As for the fourth, you'll probably need to build a particle
| accelerator and try to accelerate a particle. The LHC,
| Bevatron, and a few other accelerators all have the same
| fundamental problem: they make the assumption that their
| beam bunches are slower than lightspeed. This can be
| attributed either to Einstein's theory (the traditional
| explanation) or to the simple fact of brehmsstrahlung,
| or synchrotron radiation, leaking away sufficient energy
| to slow down the particle. I don't know, and have not
| computed the latter.
But you are wising up slowly. Sorry to hasten it, play with
a balloon instead. See if you can spend taxpayers money on
your ride. As you've seen, it cannot be Einstein's crackpottery.
|
| >
| > He did much worse than make a fundamental blunder, he built a theory
| > on it to fold in his crackpot ideas about time, too. Researchers have
| > missed finding information in astronomy and particle physics for 100
| > years because of the arrogant cunt.
| >
| > The very least you could do is spread the word around the newsgroups,
| > you were certainly sarcastic enough before.
|
| I am not a physicist.
That statement was redundant by its obviousness. You are not a
mathematician, either. See, even a car speedometer reads distance/time,
and 100km/2.2 usec = 15* speed of photons. That's a little difficult
to grasp, but you'll get there slowly. Now say "baaa" like a good sheep.
Androcles.
YBM
The electronvolt (symbol eV, or, rarely and incorrectly, ev) is a unit
of energy. It is the amount of kinetic energy gained by a single unbound
electron when it passes through an electrostatic potential difference of
one volt
[snip rest of stupidity]
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote
<bJIFg.15694$fV1....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
As you wish.
>
>
> | In any event you have yet to submit experimental
> | results consistent with the hypothesis. So far, as far
> | as I can tell, your hypothesis/results are that:
> |
> | - ground level muons are measured at 2 GeV
>
> Electron volt is a measure of charge, 1.0000 eV per electron by definition.
Doesn't quite work that way. 1 eV is the charge of 1 electron moving
through a field difference of 1 volt. This is a unit of energy.
But never mind, this isn't real physics anyway. All I'm doing is
parroting The Establishment(tm). So we'll see how this goes.
> Why are you trying to hoodwink me into thinking charge is energy?
> Isn't it time you wised up?
In Establishment Physics(tm),
1 eV = 1.602176462 ± 0.000000063* 10^-19 Joule
A Joule is a unit of energy -- 1 kg uniformly accelerated,
as much as possible, over a time of 1 second with 1 Newton
of force.
Unless you had a different unit of energy in mind, such
as a BTU, calorie, or horsepower-minute. I'd have to look
up the conversion factors.
>
> | - they are created 100 km up
>
> So it is claimed by shitheaded relativists. I see no reason why I
> shouldn't use their data against them, its a fair fight that way.
> If you prefer, muons are created 600 metres up.
> Isn't it time you wised up?
If muons are created 600 meters up, why are they detected at 41000 feet?
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/cosmicrays/tourstop3.html
>
>
> | - therefore, muons are 200 keV at rest
>
> Electron volt is a measure of charge, 1.0000 eV per electron by definition.
> Why are you trying to hoodwink me into thinking charge is energy?
> Isn't it time you wised up?
OK, lessee. eV is a unit of charge. I'll record that for your benefit.
This means, of course, that a neutron is charged a little more than a proton,
since a proton has a charge of 938.2 MeV, and a neutron 939.5 MeV.
And of course an electron has a charge of 0.511 MeV --
1/1836th of a proton. This means that a carbon nucleus
actually has about 22,000 electrons whizzing around it in
order to neutralise the charge.
Interesting chemistry you've got there.
>
> | - and are superluminal
>
> They originate 600 metres up. Definitely subluminal.
> Isn't it time you wised up?
Will you make up your mind? Either they're superluminal, or they're
not.
>
>
> | Muons are reasily enough created in the lab, and can be
> | measured therein. The third should be easy to verify.
>
>
> Those are domesticated muons. I'm talking about wild, feral muons
> that originate 600 metres up and drop dead after 2.2 usec because
> they are subluminal, same as domestic muons.
Ah, so we're postulating two entirely different particles. Interesting!
>
>
> | The second will probably require a balloon and an
> | instrumentation package.
>
> Hmm... well, there are domesticated muons that originate 600 meters
> above the balloon, but they are dead before the hit the ground and
> don't trigger scintillators. It's the wild muons that make it to sea level,
> or so the shithead relativists tell me.
> Still, you go play with your balloon, I'm not buying your shit.
>
> | As for the fourth, you'll probably need to build a particle
> | accelerator and try to accelerate a particle. The LHC,
> | Bevatron, and a few other accelerators all have the same
> | fundamental problem: they make the assumption that their
> | beam bunches are slower than lightspeed. This can be
> | attributed either to Einstein's theory (the traditional
> | explanation) or to the simple fact of brehmsstrahlung,
> | or synchrotron radiation, leaking away sufficient energy
> | to slow down the particle. I don't know, and have not
> | computed the latter.
>
> But you are wising up slowly. Sorry to hasten it, play with
> a balloon instead. See if you can spend taxpayers money on
> your ride. As you've seen, it cannot be Einstein's crackpottery.
Maybe not, but someone had better tell the LHC it won't work with its
present parameters.
>
>
>
> |
> | >
> | > He did much worse than make a fundamental blunder, he built a theory
> | > on it to fold in his crackpot ideas about time, too. Researchers have
> | > missed finding information in astronomy and particle physics for 100
> | > years because of the arrogant cunt.
> | >
> | > The very least you could do is spread the word around the newsgroups,
> | > you were certainly sarcastic enough before.
> |
> | I am not a physicist.
>
> That statement was redundant by its obviousness. You are not a
> mathematician, either. See, even a car speedometer reads distance/time,
Of course not. But you are. It's obvious by the many theoretical
papers you have submitted to that well-known journal:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
> and 100km/2.2 usec = 15* speed of photons. That's a little difficult
> to grasp, but you'll get there slowly. Now say "baaa" like a good sheep.
I'm not a good sheep. I'm a very baaaa-a-a-a-a-d sheep. :-P
Sorcerer
Ok :-)
Just wondered if you knew. So 2,000,000,000 V, 100,000 metres,
20,000 Volts per metre.
My TV has more than 50,000 Volts per metre.
I expect if I let some air in I'd have some some lightning.
Still, I would expect a photon to have a limiting velocity
in a TV tube.
Incidentally, do you know what we mean by escape velocity?
|
| But never mind, this isn't real physics anyway. All I'm doing is
| parroting The Establishment(tm). So we'll see how this goes.
|
| > Why are you trying to hoodwink me into thinking charge is energy?
| > Isn't it time you wised up?
|
| In Establishment Physics(tm),
| 1 eV = 1.602176462 ร,ยฑ 0.000000063* 10^-19 Joule
| A Joule is a unit of energy -- 1 kg uniformly accelerated,
| as much as possible, over a time of 1 second with 1 Newton
| of force.
Ok. And from that you assume an electron has mass
because E = mc^2 and give it value, right?
Have you diffracted any kilograms lately?
|
| Unless you had a different unit of energy in mind, such
| as a BTU, calorie, or horsepower-minute. I'd have to look
| up the conversion factors.
Forget that crap, let's get down to some real physics.
I don't give a shit about the units you use, let's talk about what
they mean.
You can figure out the mass of my car in eV because you know
the conversion factors, so you should be able to give me the
diffraction angle as it passes under a bridge, right? You can probably
tell me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, too.
The point is, why do you assume an electron or muon even has mass?
And if they do not have mass, why can't they outrace a photon?
Photons have no mass, right?
|
| >
| > | - they are created 100 km up
| >
| > So it is claimed by shitheaded relativists. I see no reason why I
| > shouldn't use their data against them, its a fair fight that way.
| > If you prefer, muons are created 600 metres up.
| > Isn't it time you wised up?
|
| If muons are created 600 meters up, why are they detected at 41000 feet?
|
| http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/cosmicrays/tourstop3.html
It's all relative, even distance.
Muons can't travel more than 660 metres because they have mass, you say so
and you can measure it, they travel slower than 300,000 km/sec because
Einstein said so, hence wherever you detect one it must have originated
no more than 660 metres away. But then, they are slower than photons
so we'll say 600 metres to be on the safe side.
This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant. --
Tom Roberts.
Proof is irrelevant so we can assume anything we like, and that is
the word of the shithead that has his name on the relativity FAQs.
All the prat really wants to do is be the bigoted snob he is, he refuses to
answer challenges. He'll tell you to _STUDY_ and then shrug.
Isn't it time you wised up and realized these paper pushers never produce
anything of value?
Oh wait... you are a bean counter too. You can tell me the mass of an
electron
because you can look it up and you know a conversion factor, never mind
if it has mass or not. How the heck does anyone use mathematics to
investigate fundamental particles if proof doesn't matter and properties
are assumed?
Beyond pushing a calculator button, can you actually THINK about
such things as mass and charge and diffraction and what they might mean?
| >
| >
| > | - therefore, muons are 200 keV at rest
| >
| > Electron volt is a measure of charge, 1.0000 eV per electron by
definition.
| > Why are you trying to hoodwink me into thinking charge is energy?
| > Isn't it time you wised up?
|
| OK, lessee. eV is a unit of charge. I'll record that for your benefit.
| This means, of course, that a neutron is charged a little more than a
proton,
| since a proton has a charge of 938.2 MeV, and a neutron 939.5 MeV.
Bean counting.
|
| And of course an electron has a charge of 0.511 MeV --
Nope, a MASS of 511 keV. the charge is 0.001 keV.
I can count beans too, and I know peas from apples, they
taste different.
| 1/1836th of a proton. This means that a carbon nucleus
| actually has about 22,000 electrons whizzing around it in
| order to neutralise the charge.
|
| Interesting chemistry you've got there.
Boring bullshit you've got there.
|
| >
| > | - and are superluminal
| >
| > They originate 600 metres up. Definitely subluminal.
| > Isn't it time you wised up?
|
| Will you make up your mind? Either they're superluminal, or they're
| not.
Will you make up your mind? Either a photon has mass or it doesn't.
If it doesn't, why should its path be bent in a gravitational field?
See, I'm trying to investigate what mass is, but that moron Einstein
was trying to make a name for himself, he's the prat that convinced
you all fundamental particles are slower than light.
Roberts is just like him.
The distance a muon travels is less than 660 metres to the detector
because Einstein said so, and proof is completely irrelevant.
So when it travels 100km to the detector it must be time dilated,
I can change my mind as it suits me at the time, just like anyone
else among these shitheads.
The poor students come in here looking for answers and people
like you and Roberts bleat the same baaa because you don't think.
I'm trying to get you to think, I WANT you to argue with me until
we actually reach agreement. I know you can do it, you have the
intelligence.
This is really simple.
1) Muons travel 100 km in 2.2 usec, speed 150 * photons.
2) Speed cannot exceed speed of photon, therefore time dilation.
3) tau = t / gamma
4) xi = x' * gamma
5) The speed of the Earth in the muon's FoR is u = xi/tau
6) u = x' * gamma / (tau/gamma)
7) Who really cares what the speed of the Earth is in the muon's FoR?
8) Proof is completely irrelevant, this is PHYSICS.
How on Earth is anyone going to study fundamental particles using
mathematics if they cannot make up their mind what fundamental
concepts such as distance, speed and proof are?
All that happens is argument, never progress.
| >
| > | Muons are reasily enough created in the lab, and can be
| > | measured therein. The third should be easy to verify.
| >
| >
| > Those are domesticated muons. I'm talking about wild, feral muons
| > that originate 600 metres up and drop dead after 2.2 usec because
| > they are subluminal, same as domestic muons.
|
| Ah, so we're postulating two entirely different particles. Interesting!
All that happens is argument, never progress.
In your case, facetious argument.
We are postulating that you are a moron, let's have a flame war instead
of a debate about muons.
| >
| >
| > | The second will probably require a balloon and an
| > | instrumentation package.
| >
| > Hmm... well, there are domesticated muons that originate 600 meters
| > above the balloon, but they are dead before the hit the ground and
| > don't trigger scintillators. It's the wild muons that make it to sea
level,
| > or so the shithead relativists tell me.
| > Still, you go play with your balloon, I'm not buying your shit.
| >
| > | As for the fourth, you'll probably need to build a particle
| > | accelerator and try to accelerate a particle. The LHC,
| > | Bevatron, and a few other accelerators all have the same
| > | fundamental problem: they make the assumption that their
| > | beam bunches are slower than lightspeed. This can be
| > | attributed either to Einstein's theory (the traditional
| > | explanation) or to the simple fact of brehmsstrahlung,
| > | or synchrotron radiation, leaking away sufficient energy
| > | to slow down the particle. I don't know, and have not
| > | computed the latter.
| >
| > But you are wising up slowly. Sorry to hasten it, play with
| > a balloon instead. See if you can spend taxpayers money on
| > your ride. As you've seen, it cannot be Einstein's crackpottery.
|
| Maybe not, but someone had better tell the LHC it won't work with its
| present parameters.
Go ahead. You'll be ignored.
All that happens is argument, never progress.
| > | >
| > | > He did much worse than make a fundamental blunder, he built a theory
| > | > on it to fold in his crackpot ideas about time, too. Researchers
have
| > | > missed finding information in astronomy and particle physics for 100
| > | > years because of the arrogant cunt.
| > | >
| > | > The very least you could do is spread the word around the
newsgroups,
| > | > you were certainly sarcastic enough before.
| > |
| > | I am not a physicist.
| >
| > That statement was redundant by its obviousness. You are not a
| > mathematician, either. See, even a car speedometer reads distance/time,
|
| Of course not. But you are. It's obvious by the many theoretical
| papers you have submitted to that well-known journal:
|
| http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
What is this?
Some kind of quote of some post?
An introduction to the shit you produce later on?
Shit that you expect someone will bother reading?
I said
x' = x-vt
xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Even when I agree with Einstein that fucking stooopid cunt writes
it up and says I'm wrong.
You read his shit, you are as stooopid as he is.
All that happens is argument, never progress.
|
| > and 100km/2.2 usec = 15* speed of photons. That's a little difficult
| > to grasp, but you'll get there slowly. Now say "baaa" like a good sheep.
|
| I'm not a good sheep. I'm a very baaaa-a-a-a-a-d sheep. :-P
You are a moronic sheep.
YBM
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
> news:ejskr3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> | Doesn't quite work that way. 1 eV is the charge of 1 electron moving
> | through a field difference of 1 volt. This is a unit of energy.
>
>
>
>
> Ok :-)
> Just wondered if you knew. So 2,000,000,000 V, 100,000 metres,
Disgusting hypocrite...
The Ghost In The Machine
<ybm...@nooos.fr>
wrote
on Sun, 20 Aug 2006 17:27:15 +0200
<44e87e98$0$19773$636a...@news.free.fr>:
He is what he is. For the most part he's also wrong. :-)
Yet no one can effectively refute him since he comes up
with the most outlandish arguments (without any basis in
experimental fact), though the lurkers who know something
will probably be able to make up their own minds with
any luck -- if they've not killfiled me or him already.
Dirk, to his credit, has catalogued some of them; I hope
he's catalogging his latest fumbles. An interesting
notion, generating a muon mass 2/5th of an electron's,
for example; presumably this has been measured to death
in cloud chambers.
I'm not sure what to do about AQL1493. This is equal to a "proof"
that c'=c+v only in the way that a firefly is equal to the Sun
in light ability.
In any event, mass = energy to some extent, if only because
one can pass a photon near an atom and "split" it into an
electron-positron pair, and vice versa. The conversion factors
are well known, or should be.
Sorcerer
| In sci.physics.relativity, YBM
| <ybm...@nooos.fr>
| wrote
| on Sun, 20 Aug 2006 17:27:15 +0200
| <44e87e98$0$19773$636a...@news.free.fr>:
| > Sorcerer a écrit :
| >> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message
| >> news:ejskr3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| > ...
| >> | Doesn't quite work that way. 1 eV is the charge of 1 electron moving
| >> | through a field difference of 1 volt. This is a unit of energy.
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >> Ok :-)
| >> Just wondered if you knew. So 2,000,000,000 V, 100,000 metres,
| >
| > Disgusting hypocrite...
|
| He is what he is. For the most part he's also wrong. :-)
| Yet no one can effectively refute him since he comes up
| with the most outlandish arguments (without any basis in
| experimental fact), though the lurkers who know something
| will probably be able to make up their own minds with
| any luck -- if they've not killfiled me or him already.
That's ok, show me the experimental basis for the most outlandish
arguments in SR, disgusting hypocrite. For the whole part, you
are wrong and Your Basic Moron was killfiled a long time ago.
| Dirk, to his credit, has catalogued some of them; I hope
| he's catalogging his latest fumbles. An interesting
| notion, generating a muon mass 2/5th of an electron's,
| for example; presumably this has been measured to death
| in cloud chambers.
|
| I'm not sure what to do about AQL1493. This is equal to a "proof"
| that c'=c+v only in the way that a firefly is equal to the Sun
| in light ability.
HAHAHAHA! Too funny.
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, "proof" is completely irrelevant" - Tom
Roberts
I'm not sure what to do about the firefly, it is better the moon in light
ability,
the moon has none.
| In any event, mass = energy to some extent, if only because
| one can pass a photon near an atom and "split" it into an
| electron-positron pair, and vice versa. The conversion factors
| are well known, or should be.
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, "proof" is completely irrelevant" - Tom
Roberts
(or should be, probably, disgusting hypocrite)
Ghost, to his debit, is hypocritical enough to require physical proof
when it suits him but willingly accepts a mathematical paper without proof.
His prejudice shows, though the lurkers who know something will probably
be able to make up their own minds without luck being involved, and
those that know nothing will continue to have their prejudices with luck.
Androcles
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote
on Sun, 20 Aug 2006 18:19:56 GMT
<gJ1Gg.131812$F8....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
Noted.
>
>
> | Dirk, to his credit, has catalogued some of them; I hope
> | he's catalogging his latest fumbles. An interesting
> | notion, generating a muon mass 2/5th of an electron's,
> | for example; presumably this has been measured to death
> | in cloud chambers.
> |
> | I'm not sure what to do about AQL1493. This is equal to a "proof"
> | that c'=c+v only in the way that a firefly is equal to the Sun
> | in light ability.
>
> HAHAHAHA! Too funny.
>
> "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, "proof" is completely irrelevant" - Tom
> Roberts
Ah, so AQL1493 *disproves* SR/GR and thereby *proves* Newtonian theory?
I might buy the first, though it would have to be convincing evidence,
tied together with other observations from other stars that show a
similar disproof of SR/GR. Proving Newtonian theory has the same
problems as proving any theory: one can at best show evidence therefore,
but not prove it except in a highly theoretical sense. For now, the
question of AQL1493's behavior remains unresolved because of lack of data.
Bear also in mind that many atomic and subatomic experiments show
fairly convincing evidence for SR, and specifications such as those
for the Large Hadron Collider assume SR, for whatever reason.
This includes lab muon creation.
And then there are interesting neutron star pairs which show good
evidence for general relativity. One such is PSR J0737-3039.
http://www.atnf.csiro.au/news/press/neutron_binary/
I'm satisfied that SR is for the most part mathematically consistent.
I lack the tools to check GR because I do not know tensors. Newtonian
theory has some problems, especially in light of the MMX, though I'll
have to find some data on pointing an MMX apparatus at a *moving*
source; MMX pointing at a still source cannot differentiate between
SR and frictionless aether theory (or for that matter constant-source
non-aether theory, if you prefer).
However, I can also point at a rather sophisticated GR experiment that
involved bouncing radio waves off Venus. Or:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
B. Bertotti, L. Iess and P. Tortora, "A test of general relativity using
radio links with the Cassini spacecraft", Nature 425, 374 (2003)
is one that might interest you. There is also the LATOR mission:
Turyshev, Slava G.; Shao, Michael; Nordtvedt Jr, Kenneth (2003-11-07)
In Classical and Quantum Gravity 21 2773 (2004)
which is presumably an improvement over
K. Nordtvedt, Testing relativity with laser ranging to the moon",
Phys. Rev." 170 1186-7 (1968).
>
> I'm not sure what to do about the firefly, it is better the moon in light
> ability, the moon has none.
>
The moon generates plenty of "light" in the gamma wavelengths -- more
than the Sun, in fact.
For what it's worth.
http://www.airynothing.com/high_energy_tutorial/sources/moon.html
> | In any event, mass = energy to some extent, if only because
> | one can pass a photon near an atom and "split" it into an
> | electron-positron pair, and vice versa. The conversion factors
> | are well known, or should be.
>
> "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, "proof" is completely irrelevant" - Tom
> Roberts
> (or should be, probably, disgusting hypocrite)
> Ghost, to his debit, is hypocritical enough to require physical proof
> when it suits him but willingly accepts a mathematical paper without proof.
One cannot prove using a mathematical paper. You should know; your
attempts are laughable. All I can do is point out at evidence, which
for whatever reason you're either ignoring or have already analyzed in
detail (incorrectly, I might add, in many cases -- I'll admittedly have
to look for them but Dirk has some of them on file).
> His prejudice shows, though the lurkers who know something will probably
> be able to make up their own minds without luck being involved, and
> those that know nothing will continue to have their prejudices with luck.
> Androcles
>
Ah, of course. I'm the prejudiced one here, and you're not.
Well, there is something to that; I've been prejudiced by our
educational system and my brain has been ruined by reading
various news releases and the occasional textbook. Of course,
you appear to be prejudiced against SR. Why is that?
Is it because:
- you refuse to consider that t' != t?
- you refuse to consider that w != (u+v)?
- you refuse to consider that c' = c?
Sorcerer
V 1493 Aql does, yes. Not that you would understand what a proof is,
since your mentality is to read Dork Van de merde's shit and approve
of his crap.
So just go on believing the firefly blows up twice in three months,
Santa puts prezzies under your tree, the tooth fairy gives you
money and Jesus wants you for a sunbeam.
http://www.gospelmusic.org.uk/kids/ill_be_a_sunbeam.htm
You'd probably make quite a good sunbeam for about 5 seconds.
Pray for your kinetic energy in going around the sun to be removed
so that you drop in the sun and Jesus can have his wish.
As you say, you are not a physicist.
| I might buy the first, though it would have to be convincing evidence,
Nonsense. Nothing can overcome faith or bigotry. You do not have
what it takes to be convinced. Try convincing the Pope that Jesus
was not born of a virgin. The best you can manage is "How do you
know he wasn't?" and I'm damned if I'm going to argue the case
with you. How do you know your calculator won't come up with
2+2= 3 tomorrow?
I give up with you, shithead.
| tied together with other observations from other stars that show a
| similar disproof of SR/GR. Proving Newtonian theory has the same
| problems as proving any theory: one can at best show evidence therefore,
| but not prove it except in a highly theoretical sense. For now, the
| question of AQL1493's behavior remains unresolved because of lack of data.
Jesus want you for a sunbeam. The behaviour of dropping 180 lbs of water,
carbon, calcium and trace elements into the sun remains unresolved because
of lack of data so I don't know if you'll be a UV bright sunbeam
or an ordinary green one, still wet behind the ears.
| Bear also in mind that many atomic and subatomic experiments show
| fairly convincing evidence for SR,
I will not bear it in mind because SR is shit, like you. I've explained why.
<yawn>
| >
| > I'm not sure what to do about the firefly, it is better the moon in
light
| > ability, the moon has none.
| >
|
| The moon generates plenty of "light" in the gamma wavelengths -- more
| than the Sun, in fact.
Does it?
|
| For what it's worth.
Probably more than a firefly.
|
| http://www.airynothing.com/high_energy_tutorial/sources/moon.html
|
| > | In any event, mass = energy to some extent, if only because
| > | one can pass a photon near an atom and "split" it into an
| > | electron-positron pair, and vice versa. The conversion factors
| > | are well known, or should be.
| >
| > "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, "proof" is completely irrelevant" -
Tom
| > Roberts
| > (or should be, probably, disgusting hypocrite)
| > Ghost, to his debit, is hypocritical enough to require physical proof
| > when it suits him but willingly accepts a mathematical paper without
proof.
|
| One cannot prove using a mathematical paper. You should know; your
| attempts are laughable.
Dork is between a rock and a hard place. Had he the balls to
correct my "error" he'd have been trapped by his own shit
just as Tusselad was when I had him claim
"That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
which is the same as interchanging the frames,
which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or:
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
The genius passes himself off as "Assistant Professor".
Not that you would understand at your level of algebra, but
v = xi/tau. That's too subtle for you.
| All I can do is point out at evidence, which
| for whatever reason you're either ignoring or have already analyzed in
| detail (incorrectly, I might add, in many cases -- I'll admittedly have
| to look for them but Dirk has some of them on file).
I don't give a fuck what Dork has on file. I've got a file on Dork,
a file on Roberts, a file on Baez, a file on Bilewacky, a file on Phuckwit
Duck, a file on Bilge... need I go on?
The difference is I don't continually tout it, I'm interested
in physics, not shitheads.
You've got no evidence or brain either. You are just another ignorant
bigot.
|
| > His prejudice shows, though the lurkers who know something will
probably
| > be able to make up their own minds without luck being involved, and
| > those that know nothing will continue to have their prejudices with
luck.
| > Androcles
| >
|
| Ah, of course. I'm the prejudiced one here, and you're not.
Correct. You are the bigot, not I.
|
| Well, there is something to that; I've been prejudiced by our
| educational system and my brain has been ruined by reading
| various news releases and the occasional textbook. Of course,
| you appear to be prejudiced against SR. Why is that?
|
| Is it because:
|
| - you refuse to consider that t' != t?
Considered and rejected, leads to well-known paradox.
| - you refuse to consider that w != (u+v)?
Yes. Vector addition of velocities is an axiom.
| - you refuse to consider that c' = c?
No, v can be zero, but c = 0/0 in SR.
Of course, you appear to be prejudiced in favour of SR. Why is that?
Is it because:
- you prefer to believe w = (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) because you have your
head up your arse and (1+15)/(1+1*15/1^2) = 1 and not 1+15 = 16?
With some help from section 3, of course, which uses t = x'/(c-v)
and not t = x' / [ (c-v)/(1-v/c) ] to be consistent, shithead.
Androcles
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote
<uB4Gg.131947$F8.8...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
OK. So Aql1493 conclusively disproves relativity. Thank you.
For your next trick ... ?
[blip]
Sorcerer
[cunt]
Androcles.
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote
<Eq6Gg.132428$F8....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
[oops]
Sorcerer
[nothing]
What's the difference between xi and x', dork? Ask Dork.
Androcles.
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote
<Ev8Gg.133600$F8.1...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
I'm not Dirk. :-P
But OK.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
is handy and you're here, so...
K is stationary, with coordinates (t,x,y,z).
k is moving v with respect to K, with coordinates (tau,xi,eta,zeta).
K' is moving -v with respect to k, with coordinates (t',x',y',z').
In other words, K is the tracks, k a moving train, and K'
a person moving with respect to the train. Or, if you
prefer, since you seem to like them, K is marshy ground,
k a green flying elephant, and K' a turtle on top of
that elephant.
Therefore xi-x' = xi-x, by the logic given in the paper.
In the 6th paragraph, however, the paper states:
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. We
first define $\tau$ as a function of x', y, z, and t. To do this we
have to express in equations that tau is nothing else than the
summary of the data of clocks at rest in system k, which have been
synchronized according to the rule given in § 1.
This is an unfortunate state of affairs but is generally not a major
problem; basically x' has two definitions in the same section. In
that case xi-x' = xi-(x-vt).
So which one do you prefer?
Peter Christensen
> "Peter Christensen" <Pe...@MailAPS.org> kirjoitti
> viestissä:1155473996.6...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > vertv...@msn.com wrote:
> >> TIME DILATION
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> Secondly, it must not violate any known physics laws. Nor, obviously,
> >> can it lead to a reductio ad absurdum.
> >
> > That can be used many places.
> >
> > The believe in a varying speed of light is absurd, because no attempt
> > to measure the speed of light has ever resulted in other values than c.
> >
> > The velocity of the emitting object (call it v) does not change the
> > value of the speed of light as measured. One could expect to measure
> > v+c, but that never happens. The speed of the light is always measured
> > to be exactely c, in any frames.
> >
> > A ballistic theory is absurd, because it would give other values than
> > the measured one: c.
> >
> >> Theories necessarily contain speculation - else they are not theories
> >> but simply logical constructs. Such constructs must also meet the above
> >> requirements.
> >
> > The concept 'time dilation' is nothing but a logical construct. It
> > follows from Einsteins two postulates:
> >
> > * The speed of light is always c. -In all systems, also when they are
> > moving with different velocities!
> >
> > * All systems are equal (The same physical laws, which is not so
> > strange.)
> >
> > I hope, that you agree with me, that 'time dilation' can be derived
> > from the first postulate (if people believe in the first postulate or
> > not.)
> >
> > Also: The first one is the interesting one, and it can appear quite
> > strange. -But again, noone has ever measured other values of the speed
> > of light, than the value known a c. No matter how the systems was
> > designed and what their velocities was.
> >
> > PC
>
> Are you serious? Haven't you heard of red or blue shifts. It is the basic of
> physics that wave-lengths do not change. What choice does that leave?
Where did you hear that?
More on Time Dilation in
news:1155651858....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
PC