The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Message from discussion Bile awski the Janitor.

From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Subject:
 Validation: For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon.

More options Oct 5 2005, 8:07 am
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 12:07:42 GMT
Local: Wed, Oct 5 2005 8:07 am
Subject: Re: Bile awski the Janitor.

"JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in message

| Androcles wrote:

| > "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > | Androcles wrote:
| > | > "JanPB" <film...@gmail.com> wrote in message
| [...]
| > | > |    tau(80,0,0,16) - tau(0,0,0,0) = tau(60,0,0,20) -
tau(80,0,0,16)
| > | > |
| > | > | When you collect the terms you get the 1/2.
| > | >
| > | > Prove it.
| > |
| > | I don't quite see why you ask such an obvious question be here it
goes
| > | anyway:
| > |
| > | Starting with:
| > |
| > |  tau(80,0,0,16) - tau(0,0,0,0) = tau(60,0,0,20) - tau(80,0,0,16)
| > |
| > | Move tau(80,0,0,16) to the left and tau(0,0,0,0) to the right:
| > |
| > |  2 * tau(80,0,0,16) = tau(0,0,0,0) + tau(60,0,0,20)
| > |
| > | Divide by 2:
| > |
| > |  tau(80,0,0,16) = 1/2*(tau(0,0,0,0) + tau(60,0,0,20))
| > |
| > | This is it.
| >
| > So half of  80 is 60 and half of 20 is 16
| > Well done.
|
| Do you know the difference between:
|
|    (80,0,0,16)
|
| and:
|
|    tau(80,0,0,16) ?

Yes.
|
| Define both.

(80,0,0,16) -A vector (as long as the 16 doesn't represent time, which
is not a vector)
tau(80,0,0,16) - A single-valued function in four variables.

Examples of a vector:
(0,0,0,0) + (60,0,0,20) =  (60,0,0,20)
2*(40,0,0,8) = (80,0,0,16)

Examples of a phuckwit:  2*(60,0,0,20) = (80,0,0,16)
2* (80,0,0,16) = (60,0,0,20)
Example of a single-valued function in 4 variables:
\$20 = price(apple+orange+cherry,\$16*retail/wholesale)

Do you know the difference between a phuckwit and a mathematician?
Define both. (Not possible for a phuckwit)

| > | > So what if it takes a turtle 16 seconds to go from 0 to 80 at
speed
| > 5
| > | > and 4 seconds from 80 to 60 at velocity  -5?
| > | > Still, if you think 20/2 = 16 you are as crazy as Hammond
<shrug>
| > |
| > | The 16 and 4 seconds are times as measured by the stationary
clocks
| > | (t).
| >
| > Yes ducky, and the moving train has fuck-all to do with that.
| >
| >  The corresponding readings by the clocks sitting on the train
| > | (tau) are different than those t-readings and they are equal in
both
| > | directions.
| >
| > There is no moving train in your equation.  It doesn't exist.
| > No sign of it anywhere.
|
| Complete nonsense. The tau equation expresses a constraint between the
| stationary coordinates and one moving coordinate (namely, tau).
Without
| either of those systems there is no tau equation.

Stationary coordinates:
Emission (0,0,0,0)
Reflection (80,0,0,16)
Reception (60,0,0,20)

Moving coordinates:
Emission (0,0,0,0)
Reflection (32,0,0,16)
Reception (0,0,0,20)

You don't have a 32 anywhere.
So you don't have a tau equation <shrug>.
You ARE simply insane. You know practically zero about the subject and
yet you write... THIS?? Why even do you waste your time on this?

|
| > Light leaves 0, goes to 80, takes 16 seconds.
| > Light leaves 80, goes to 60, takes 4 seconds.
| > No train involved.
|
| The train clocks are involved. What do you think "tau" means in that
| equation?

Time of the stationary system.

| I suppose you could get rid of the train and just assume the
| clocks are levitating or something - that's fine with me. But the
| mental picture of the train is a convenient shortcut.

Locking you in a padded cell would be convenient shortcut.

|
| > | > Crap. You have no idea what you are babbling about.
| > |
| > | Could you back it up. I simply stated the starting point of the
| > | derivation argument.
| >
| > No you didn't. You gave track coordinates and track time.
| > The train is in the siding, not moving on the track.
| > Light leaves 0, goes to 80, takes 16 seconds, velocity of light 5.
| > Light leaves 80, goes to 60, takes 5 seconds, velocity of light -5.
| >
| > 16/20 * [ f(0,0,0,0) + f(60,0,0, 80/5 + (60-80)/-5)] = f(80,0,0,16)
| > No train, f is linear, no half either.
|
| Nope. The point is that these times (16 seconds and 4 seconds) are in
| terms of the stationary clocks which is *not* what tau(...) are.

You don't have a point, you don't even have a neuron.
The point is that these prices (\$16 and \$4) are in terms of the
stationary wholesalers which is *not* what retail price(apple, orange)
are.
I dont know how you survive in the real world.

| They
| are equal to certain *moving* clock readings.

You don't have ANYTHING moving, not a 32 in sight.

At the beginning of the
| derivation we don't know these values

Yes we do.
Stationary coordinates:
Emission (0,0,0,0)
Reflection (80,0,0,16)
Reception (60,0,0,20)

Moving coordinates:
Emission (0,0,0,0)
Reflection (32,0,0,16)
Reception (0,0,0,20)

You've left out
Reflection (32,0,0,16)
You are simply insane. You know practically zero about the subject and
yet you write... THIS?? Why even do you waste your time on this?
It's WAY too simple-minded.-- Bielawski.

- all we know at first is that
| they are constrained by the tau equation. It turns out this constraint
| is strong enough to produce the formula for these moving clock
|
| > f(t) = t
|
| Are you saying that:
|
|  tau(80,0,0,16) = 16
|  tau(0,0,0,0) = 0
|  tau(60,0,0,20)) = 20 ?

Yes.

|
| > | > | My only point for writing exclusively in terms of (x,y,z,t)
and
| > | > | (xi,eta,zeta,tau) was to mention that the third system
(x',y,z,t)
| > is
| > | > | not *in principle* important and the derivation is 95%
identical
| > | > | without it.
| > | >
| > | > Bullshit. You are babbling.
| > |
| > | No, I can write both derivations side by side and the differences
are
| > | small.
| >
| > No you can't. You think 16 is half of 20 and 60 is half of 80.
|
| No, what I think is:
|
|   tau(80,0,0,16) = 1/2*(tau(0,0,0,0) + tau(60,0,0,20))
|
| ...which is a *totally* different thing than "16 is half of 20 and 60
| is half of 80".

But you don't think. You are not capable of thinking.
You are simply insane.
Even Einstein would have said (and did say, effectively)
tau(32,0,0,16) = 1/2*(tau(0,0,0,0) + tau(60,0,0,20))

v(x,y,z,t) = x/t
c(x,y,z,t) = x/t

v(32,0,0,16) = 32/16 = 2.
c(80,0,0,16) = 80/16 = 5.
Your equation is the raving of a lunatic.
Seek psychiatric help (and fuck off).
Androcles