The Bell Tolls for Dinky-Donkey
Mike
>
> Ha, now I see, you object to the usage of my using the
> relativistic composition of velocities in
>
> | "Observer I can parametrize the worldline of A with the same
> | proper time T, so he will see infinitesimally consecutive
velocities
> | of A as v(T) and v(T+dT).
> | Since v(T+dT) is the standard SR composition ('addition') of the
> | velocities v(T) and dV(T), we can write (using c=1):
> | v(T+dT) = [ v(T) + dV(T) ] / [ 1 + v(T) dV(T) ]
>
> You probably think this should be
> v(T+dT) = v(T) + dV(T)
>
> Well, I have some bad news for you. You missed the very
> essence of the derivation. Look at the title: "SR treatment of..."
> You know that SR says that
> "When and object P has a relative velocity u w.r.t.
> to an inertial frame Q, of which the observer itself
> has a relative velocity v w.r.t. an inertial observer R,
> then the object P has a relative velocity
> w = (u+v)/(1+u v)
> w.r.t. the observer R."
>
> Now replace
> P => observer A at proper time T+dT
> Q => instantaneously comoving inertial frame of observer
> at proper time T of observer
> R => initial rest frame I
> u => dV(T)
> v => v(T)
> w => v(T+dT)
> We must do this because it must be valid for *all* values
> of T, and v(T) becomes quite large, so using the Galilean
> transformation here would be totally wrong.
>
> Together with the fact that dV(T) can be written as
> dV(T) = a(T) dT
> because dT is infinitesimal, that is the very essence of
> the derivation.
>
> You see, it's not only mathematics that is doing its job
> here. It's physics. It's knowing what the symbols mean.
> Too bad you just made a fool of yourself by missing
> the crucial part.
>
> Dirk Vdm
Velocity addition deals with instantenuous velocities. dv(T) is not
instantenuous with v(T), it does not matter how small you make dT.
Thus, using velocity addition first and taking the limit after is
absurd, since by taking the limit you essentially drop the
infinitesimal which you used in velocity addition in the first place.
You have to find a better way, maybe try non-standard analysis. Even
Berkeley would have laughed at you Dinky-Donkey and call you an infidel
mathematician. (I betsya, you don't know what I'm talking about Ms.
biggy)
Mike
Mike
P.S. It's late here but I still wonder: is physics and relativity thugs
so **cked up?
MIke
Eric Gisse
Mike wrote:
[snip]
>
> Velocity addition deals with instantenuous velocities. dv(T) is not
> instantenuous with v(T), it does not matter how small you make dT.
> Thus, using velocity addition first and taking the limit after is
> absurd, since by taking the limit you essentially drop the
> infinitesimal which you used in velocity addition in the first place.
Someone failed first semester calculus...
Randy Poe
Eric Gisse wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > Velocity addition deals with instantenuous velocities. dv(T) is not
> > instantenuous with v(T), it does not matter how small you make dT.
> > Thus, using velocity addition first and taking the limit after is
> > absurd, since by taking the limit you essentially drop the
> > infinitesimal which you used in velocity addition in the first
place.
>
> Someone failed first semester calculus...
This is a guy who can't be convinced that
-sqrt(x) = -3 means sqrt(x) is positive.
- Randy
Androcles
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1107915393.2...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>
>> Ha, now I see, you object to the usage of my using the
>> relativistic composition of velocities
Yes...
Any moron that thinks the composition of the two velocities 1 and 99
is given by
(1 + 99) / (1 + 99/1) = 1
and not 100 must have a screw loose, and it is quite certain the
morontel is one of those.
>> in
>>
>> | "Observer I can parametrize the worldline of A
Whatever that is...
>> with the same
>> | proper time T,
As if there was any other kind...
One has to wonder what improper time is...
>> so he will see infinitesimally consecutive velocities
>> | of A as v(T) and v(T+dT).
>> | Since v(T+dT) is the standard SR composition ('addition') of the
>> | velocities v(T) and dV(T),
Which was derived in § 5 of "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS
OF MOVING BODIES" by Albert Einstein
"with the help of the equations of transformation developed in § 3"
which in turn were derived from absurd equation
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
which in its turn is a restatement of the absurd DEFINITION "that the
``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it
requires to travel from B to A" given in § 1 and makes use of the
standard velocities c-v, c+v which are not the composition of velocities
as stated in § 3 as "the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" in
contradiction of "the standard SR composition ('addition') of the
velocities v(T) and dV(T)".
This makes anything morontel writes on the matter automatically
self-contradictory and that should end the matter, but I'm sure morontel
is going to persist in his idiocy.
Androcles
Eric Gisse
Mike too?
Wow. I thought it was just limited to Androcles.
>
> - Randy
Mike
Eric Gisse wrote:
> Randy Poe wrote:
> > Eric Gisse wrote:
> > > Mike wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Velocity addition deals with instantenuous velocities. dv(T) is
> not
> > > > instantenuous with v(T), it does not matter how small you make
> dT.
> > > > Thus, using velocity addition first and taking the limit after
is
> > > > absurd, since by taking the limit you essentially drop the
> > > > infinitesimal which you used in velocity addition in the first
> > place.
> > >
> > > Someone failed first semester calculus...
Obviously you.
> >
> > This is a guy who can't be convinced that
> > -sqrt(x) = -3 means sqrt(x) is positive.
Hello crank.
>
> Mike too?
>
> Wow. I thought it was just limited to Androcles.
>
> >
> > - Randy
Any compelling arguments that v(T) and dv(T) are instantenuous
velocities that can be used in velocity addition formula?
As far as Androcles goes, beyond insults and accusations, no **ckhead
in these ng's has presented any sound argument against his claims. Just
dogmatism that this is thw way it should be.
OK monkeys, let's go. We have more bannanas for you along the way,you
will be jumping from tree to tree branch **rking off all over the
place.
Mike
Dirk Van de moortel
Specially for you, "Undeniable" aka "Bill Smith" aka "Eleatis",
I have added a little clarification to
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Acceleration.html
But of course, you're one of those frustrated engineers
who decide that a theory they don't understand is based
on mathematics only, so I don't expect you to even
remotely understand anything about it.
Dig, pig, dig...
Squeal pig, squeal...
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1107925914....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
No... Androcles managed to make it spread among some
of the lost cases. He's doing an excellent job, luring them in
his cave of no-return, don't you think?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message news:wUgOd.60748$K7.5...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
> news:1107915393.2...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >>
> >> Ha, now I see, you object to the usage of my using the
> >> relativistic composition of velocities
>
> Yes...
> Any moron that thinks the composition of the two velocities 1 and 99
>
> is given by
>
> (1 + 99) / (1 + 99/1) = 1
>
> and not 100 must have a screw loose, and it is quite certain the
> morontel is one of those.
Androcles is one of those top-class experimentalists who
has done an experiment where a velocity of 1 m/s was
combined with a velocity of 1 m/s and it gave exactly
2.00000000000000000 m/s as opposed to the
1.99999999999999998 m/s that is predicted by the theory.
Together with Jim Greenfield, Vertner Vergon, John
Polasek, and Mike (aka Bill Smith aka Undeniable aka
Eleatis) he will be nominated for the Nobel-prize next year.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1107944252.0...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > Randy Poe wrote:
> > > Eric Gisse wrote:
> > > > Mike wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Velocity addition deals with instantenuous velocities. dv(T) is
> > > > > not
> > > > > instantenuous with v(T), it does not matter how small you make
> > > > > dT.
> > > > > Thus, using velocity addition first and taking the limit after
> > > > > is
> > > > > absurd, since by taking the limit you essentially drop the
> > > > > infinitesimal which you used in velocity addition in the first
> > > > > place.
> > > >
> > > > Someone failed first semester calculus...
>
> Obviously you.
>
>
> > >
> > > This is a guy who can't be convinced that
> > > -sqrt(x) = -3 means sqrt(x) is positive.
>
> Hello crank.
>
>
> >
> > Mike too?
> >
> > Wow. I thought it was just limited to Androcles.
> >
> > >
> > > - Randy
>
> Any compelling arguments that v(T) and dv(T) are instantenuous
> velocities that can be used in velocity addition formula?
Ha... now I see your error.
I did not use v(T) and dv(T) in a velocity composition formula.
I used v(T) and dV(T) in a velocity composition formula.
Spot the difference ;-)
dV(T) was defined as:
| At each time T, observer A can write the amount with which his
| velocity has changed during a small (infinitesimal) proper time
| interval dT during which the acceleration does not change as
| dV(T) = a(T) dT
| This change of velocity is to be regarded with respect to the
| instantaneously comoving inertial frame at time T.
So, this is effectively the velocity of A with respect to the
ICIF after a small time interval dT.
It is essential that you understand this, but I understand that
it takes just a tiny bit more than high school math.
If there is anything else I can help you understand, feel
free to ask.
But try to read what is written first and try to be a bit more
polite, okay, pig?
Dirk Vdm
Mike
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
[snip]
>
> Specially for you, "Undeniable" aka "Bill Smith" aka "Eleatis",
> I have added a little clarification to
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Acceleration.html
> But of course, you're one of those frustrated engineers
> who decide that a theory they don't understand is based
> on mathematics only, so I don't expect you to even
> remotely understand anything about it.
>
> Dig, pig, dig...
> Squeal pig, squeal...
>
> Dirk Vdm
Clarify imbecile Dinky-Donkey on what basis you can consider dv(T) and
v(t) as relative velocities that can be plugged in the velocity
addition formula. dv(T) does not occur simultaneously with v(T). You
have no basis for doing math trickery to get to your absurd formula.
Your assignement of variables in the velocity addition formula does not
make sense. I'm not disputing here the formula, I have left that
embarishing to you and co-morons task to Androcles. I give you an
example monkey, from a well-known book taught in some universities in
which the idiot author does something similar with you:
The jerk starts with F = m dv/dt. Then the same jerk notes that this
can be written as F = d(mv)/dt since m is a scalar. Then the very same
jerk (in which general class you are a element of) concludes that F =
dp/dt
You are totally **cked like several others here. Math is only a tool.
Proper application of math is important. Because you get something that
symbolically resembles to what you expect to get, it does not mean your
procedure is valid, like in the example I mentioned above with F =
dp/dt.
Get a life monkey, dinky-donkey. Did you hear the bell?
Mike
Mike
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
[snip]
>
> Ha... now I see your error.
>
> I did not use v(T) and dv(T) in a velocity composition formula.
> I used v(T) and dV(T) in a velocity composition formula.
> Spot the difference ;-)
>
[snip]
It does not make any difference, only makes things worse to your
disadvantage. That is, dv(T) and dV(T) are inextricably related and
this relationship must be considered a priori, not a posteriori after
you take the limit.
Dink-Donk
Mike
>
> Dirk Vdm
Franz Heymann
> As far as Androcles goes, beyond insults and accusations,
It is not possible to insult Androclown. His intellect lies beneath
the level of the lowest of insults.
> no **ckhead
> in these ng's has presented any sound argument against his claims.
Here are three sound observational arguments which prove Androclown to
be just thst, a clown and no more:
First
One particle accelerator was designed and built in a domain which lay
slightly outside that in which non-relativistic dynamics apply. It
failed to operate in that domain.
A very large number of particle accelerators have been designed using
the consequences of SR dynamics. Almost all of them have been built.
All those which have been built have operated successfully, up to and
including domains where the relativistic gamma factor is 200,000. I
mean two hundred thousand, and not just the piddling little correction
fsctor the backwoodsmen concern themselves with.
Second
I have studied the elastic scattering between protons i which the
opening angle between the outgoing particles hvae been in agreement
with the relativistic predictions, and in excess of a factor 200
smaller than the corresponding non-relativistic predictions.
Third
I have designed and utilised kaon and pion beams in which the beam
transport line was so long that hardly any particles would have
completed the journey to the experimental station if it had not been
for time dilation factors of up to 20.
[snip]
Franz
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1107952079....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> > Specially for you, "Undeniable" aka "Bill Smith" aka "Eleatis",
> > I have added a little clarification to
> > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Acceleration.html
> > But of course, you're one of those frustrated engineers
> > who decide that a theory they don't understand is based
> > on mathematics only, so I don't expect you to even
> > remotely understand anything about it.
> >
> > Dig, pig, dig...
> > Squeal pig, squeal...
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> Clarify imbecile Dinky-Donkey on what basis you can consider dv(T) and
> v(t) as relative velocities that can be plugged in the velocity
> addition formula. dv(T) does not occur simultaneously with v(T). You
> have no basis for doing math trickery to get to your absurd formula.
I did not use v(T) and dv(T) in a velocity composition formula.
I used v(T) and dV(T) in a velocity composition formula.
Spot the difference.
Specially for you I have added some colors to
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Acceleration.html
But I'm sure you will not understand.
Dirk Vdm
Randy Poe
Eric Gisse wrote:
> Randy Poe wrote:
> > -sqrt(x) = -3 means sqrt(x) is positive.
>
> Mike too?
>
> Wow. I thought it was just limited to Androcles.
I believe that's the origin of his use of the epithet
"square-rooty" for Dirk vdM. I could be wrong, but I think
it's significant that there was no effort on Mike's part
to deny the accusation.
- Randy
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1107952479....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
For your benefit, I just have added some colors to
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Acceleration.html
Perhaps that helps, pig?
Dirk Vdm
Mike
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1107952479....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > Ha... now I see your error.
> > >
> > > I did not use v(T) and dv(T) in a velocity composition formula.
> > > I used v(T) and dV(T) in a velocity composition formula.
> > > Spot the difference ;-)
> > >
> > [snip]
> >
> > It does not make any difference, only makes things worse to your
> > disadvantage. That is, dv(T) and dV(T) are inextricably related and
> > this relationship must be considered a priori, not a posteriori
after
> > you take the limit.
>
> For your benefit, I just have added some colors to
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Acceleration.html
> Perhaps that helps, pig?
>
> Dirk Vdm
Hey Dinky-Donkey why don't you become a frustrated painter?
dV(t), or dv(T), for the same reason can never be instantenuous with
v(T). Only ratios of infinitesimals at the limit are instantenuous. You
are applying velocity addition formula to quantities that do not
manifest in the same instant of proper time T. Get it Donkey? You can;t
do that before you take the limit. Only after you take the limit. But
then, how are you going to do it?
What happens is that dV(T) can be considered an invariant infinitesimal
change and thus the procedure turns out to produce the right result. It
is flawed mathematically nevertheless. Needless to say that it gives
the correct result only for constant a(T).
Dink-Donk
Mike
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1107965863.5...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > "Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
> news:1107952479....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > Ha... now I see your error.
> > > >
> > > > I did not use v(T) and dv(T) in a velocity composition formula.
> > > > I used v(T) and dV(T) in a velocity composition formula.
> > > > Spot the difference ;-)
> > > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > It does not make any difference, only makes things worse to your
> > > disadvantage. That is, dv(T) and dV(T) are inextricably related and
> > > this relationship must be considered a priori, not a posteriori
> > > after you take the limit.
> >
> > For your benefit, I just have added some colors to
> > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Acceleration.html
> > Perhaps that helps, pig?
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> Hey Dinky-Donkey why don't you become a frustrated painter?
So it didn't help :-)
Perhaps if you try to carefully explain to us, why *you*
think *I* added the colors...
>
> dV(t), or dv(T), for the same reason can never be instantenuous with
> v(T).
Hm, I wouldn't even try to explain the colors if I were you.
Your usage of the word "instantaneous" proves that you
haven't understood special relativity to begin with. You see,
that is a prerequisite to understand this. Perhaps you think
the page is meant to be a proof of SR or something. Well,
I have to disappoint you. It's an application of SR, so no
wonder to break your teeth on it.
Squeal, pig, squeal some more ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Mike
Hey retarded dinkydonkey. Do you want a first year elementary school
explanation of your error? dV(T) is not a velocity of any body stupid.
It is an infinitesimal change of velocity.
Look stupid, a car accelerates from 50 Km/hr to 50.000001 Km.hr in
amount dt just to make it rediculously simple for your elementary
school level. is 0.000001 KM/hr some kind of velocity you can consider
in a velocity addition formula?
If it is a velocity stupid, of what is it? The car either moves at 50
Km/hr at t or at 50.000001 Km/hr at t+dt. Nothing moves wrt to nothing
at 0.00001 Km/hr or at whatever small infinitesimal value dV(T).
The velocity addition formula is arrived at using the Lorentz transform
for bodies moving in inertial reference frames and it is basically a
measure of the relative velocity of one body as measured from the other
body when the former is considered at rest. Nothing like that applies
to the particular case you considered involving a body in accelerated
motion. Just ad-hoc application to fit your end objective.
Mike
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1108002534.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| At each time T, observer A can write the amount with which his
| velocity has changed during a small (infinitesimal) proper time
| interval dT during which the acceleration does not change as
| dV(T) = a(T) dT
| This change of velocity is to be regarded with respect to the
| instantaneously comoving inertial frame at time T.
Squeal pig, squeal :-)
Dirk Vdm
Mike
Hey psycho, you wrote:
> > > Your usage of the word "instantaneous" proves that you
> > > haven't understood special relativity to begin with.
Before that you wrote:
>This change of velocity is to be regarded with respect to the
>instantaneously comoving inertial frame at time T.
Are you such a psycho?
There is not such a thing as an instantenuous comoving inertial frame
that has any physical significance. It is just a bad math trick
invented to circumvent the stupidity of the velocity addition formula
in SR.
Newton proved to you stupid idiot, retarded psychopathetic moron, that
an instantneous comoving inertial frame at time T does not exist, using
his bucket experiment. Mach totally rejected the notion of
instantenuous moving or comoving inertial frames.
You barking dog, you can't have your cake and eat it to. Even if you
postulate the instantenuous comoving inertial frame at time T, dV(T)
occures at time T+d(T). v(T) and dV(T) are nothing to compare as far as
relative velocities as you do physically.
Now, get back to find a better solution to the problem. You problem
shows in a glorious way that velocity addition is incompatible with
accelerated motion. Of course, this is well known and something that
gave headique to the pattern examiner for many years before he was able
to find someone who knew the math for GR.
Come now and eat the **it of the pig.
Mike
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1108030622.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I wrote:
| At each time T, observer A can write the amount with which his
| velocity has changed during a small (infinitesimal) proper time
| interval dT during which the acceleration does not change as
| dV(T) = a(T) dT
| This change of velocity is to be regarded with respect to the
| instantaneously comoving inertial frame at time T.
so dV(T) is a velocity.
It's not my fault if you are too much of an imbecile to understand
even *that* :-)
Dig yourself in, pig, dig...
Squeal, pig, squeal :-)
Dirk Vdm
Mike
Psycho, this is FYI:
Metrical properties of Minkowski space-time:
-How far appart two events are in time: cannot be answered
-How far apart two events are in space: cannot be answered
-Are two events simultaneous? cannot be answred
-Are two events co-located in space? cannot be answered
Now, psycho, if you want to solve the acceleration problem in SR, don't
bastardize it with Galilean and Newtonian concepts. Why don't you use
the theory itself and its metrical properties.
But of course, like simple dynamics problems, SR and GR thugs cannot do
any problem using their own formulation and resort to Newtonian
mechanics, appealing to weak-limit catharsis. You have resorted to
Galilean kinematics bastardized with SR velocity addition.
Now, I'm not surprised you don't get what I'm saying here because you
have exhibited all along that you don't have what it takes.
Mike
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1108034032.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > "Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
> news:1108030622.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > > > "Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
> > > news:1108002534.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> > > > Squeal pig, squeal :-)
> > > >
> > > > Dirk Vdm
> > >
> > > Hey psycho, you wrote:
> >
> > I wrote:
> > | At each time T, observer A can write the amount with which his
> > | velocity has changed during a small (infinitesimal) proper time
> > | interval dT during which the acceleration does not change as
> > | dV(T) = a(T) dT
> > | This change of velocity is to be regarded with respect to the
> > | instantaneously comoving inertial frame at time T.
> > so dV(T) is a velocity.
> >
> > It's not my fault if you are too much of an imbecile to understand
> > even *that* :-)
> >
> > Dig yourself in, pig, dig...
> > Squeal, pig, squeal :-)
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> Psycho, this is FYI:
>
> Metrical properties of Minkowski space-time:
So first you got confused between my notation dV(T) and what
*your* myopic eyes thought was dv(T), and now you're trying
to dodge your silly mistake and your misplaced remarks with
complete irrelevancies.
Listen, if you panic over the notation dV(T), then call it
MoronMike(T) or something, or even better, don't give it a
symbol and replace it everywhere in the derivation with its
value a(T) dT.
Dig deeper, pig, deeper...
Don't forget to squeal every fifteen minutes.
I *love* the sound of it :-)
Dirk Vdm
Mike
You know moron that was a typo of mine.
> Listen, if you panic over the notation dV(T), then call it
> MoronMike(T) or something, or even better, don't give it a
> symbol and replace it everywhere in the derivation with its
> value a(T) dT.
v(T) and a(T)dT are not relative velocities in any inertial frames,
moving or comoving. a(T)d(T) is just a mathematical quantity used to
break down a motion path into infinitesimallly small paths. You cannot
mix physics and artifacts for your own moron shake idiot.
Why don't you start with the invariant metric and the clock postulate.
Let's see if you can go through a real SR derivation rather than the
stupid procedure you followed, which is so stupid and wrong you would
fail a graduate course in SR.
Mike
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1108038672....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Don't expect me to believe that at this stage.
>
> > Listen, if you panic over the notation dV(T), then call it
> > MoronMike(T) or something, or even better, don't give it a
> > symbol and replace it everywhere in the derivation with its
> > value a(T) dT.
>
> v(T) and a(T)dT are not relative velocities in any inertial frames,
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Acceleration.html
definition of v(T):
| "Observer I can parametrize the worldline of A with the
| same proper time T, so he will see infinitesimally
| consecutive velocities of A as v(T) and v(T+dT)."
definition of a(T) dT:
| At each time T, observer A can write the amount with which his
| velocity has changed during a small (infinitesimal) proper time
| interval dT during which the acceleration does not change as
| dV(T) = a(T) dT
| This change of velocity is to be regarded with respect to the
| instantaneously comoving inertial frame at time T.
Squeal and dig, pig, dig and squeal :-)
Harder! Harder!
Dirk Vdm
Mike
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
[snip]
>
> definition of a(T) dT:
> | At each time T, observer A can write the amount with which his
> | velocity has changed during a small (infinitesimal) proper time
> | interval dT during which the acceleration does not change as
> | dV(T) = a(T) dT
> | This change of velocity is to be regarded with respect to the
> | instantaneously comoving inertial frame at time T.
Hey moron, "This change in velocity...". A change in velocity is not a
velocity you can plug in the velocity addition formula. It does not
matter that you consider a comoving inertial frame at time T. There is
no body moving inertially at dV(T) in the problem.
Do you understand moron the definition of inertial motion? Here is one,
maybe not the best.
(Motion = Inertial, in [t1, t2]) <---> For all t in [t1, t2], dv/dt = 0
But in your case, dV(T) = a(T)dT, that is there is acceleration. Note
that the interval in [t1, t2] must be closed left-right. Yours, is open
left-right, (T, T+dT), since at those instance, a change of velocity
must take place, otherwise there would be no acceleration.
By making dT small nothing changes to your advantage. Those limits you
take cannot apply to open intervals, since those are not in the domain
of the function you consider. You derivation is fundamentally flawed.
Mike
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1108054360....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> > definition of a(T) dT:
> > | At each time T, observer A can write the amount with which his
> > | velocity has changed during a small (infinitesimal) proper time
> > | interval dT during which the acceleration does not change as
> > | dV(T) = a(T) dT
> > | This change of velocity is to be regarded with respect to the
> > | instantaneously comoving inertial frame at time T.
>
> Hey moron,
I have added a little picture for you:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Acceleration.html
Enjoy digging!
Dirk Vdm