Physical Attributes of Time
Mitchell
Newton talked about time flowing too.
From this metaphore I gather they saw(?) time as some kind of movement.
Could motion be the primary metaphysical attribute of time?
What other physical attributes could we then ascribe to time?
Mitch Raemsch
-- Time moves forward: in all directions --
Androcles
"Mitchell" <macro...@internetCDS.com> wrote in message
news:9c3da975.04022...@posting.google.com...
have a 'velocity', and if so, by what standard do we measure it? To answer
this, we need a standard clock against which we can measure the time of some
other clock elsewhere. If we suppose that our standard clock (call it A)
ticks at a slower or faster rate relative to the B clock, then we have two
parallel rivers of time that flow at different rates. But what IS a clock?
It is regular oscillator and a counter. The counter can be considered
perfect, since it is either an electronic device or a gear train, or perhaps
a human being counting years. Most of us know how old we are. When we
synchronize a clock, we change setting of the hands or the numbers displayed
so that the clocks agree on the count. This in no way affects the
oscillator. Now if time is relative, we require identical oscillators to
tick differently, relative to the other.
There are many such oscillators in our universe, all of which already tick
at different speeds. There is the rotation of the Earth that we call day,
The moon's cycle that we call month, the revolution of the Earth that we
call year, the periods of Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus,
Neptune and Pluto, and the periods of all their moons too. Although these
are not identical oscillators, they do have definite ratios and we can
predict where a jovian moon will be, in agreement with all other stars and
planets. Thus we have a master clock, although we must take into account the
apparent positions resulting in the finite speed of light carrying the
information to us. All these will agree with clock A. If clock B doesn't
agree with clock A, then clock B doesn't agree with any other oscillator. We
are then left with a universal time
against which clock B can be measured. We might also introduce clock C which
doesn't agree with A or B, but we can leave that to one side, and
concentrate on clock B for the remainder of the analysis.
Since the counters are perfect, and we will assume the oscillators are also,
an change in B may be counted by more than one counter. To see why, it is
only necessary to have the ticks broadcast by radio and picked up by
multiple receiver counters. Likewise, oscillator B may have its own local
counter, and also receive the count from clock A, or simply view the
positions of the planets and moons. Thus if the flow of the river of time
for B is different fro B than for A, it must see A running faster if B is
the slower, or vice versa, and he only way that can happen is if the counts
differ.
So if time almost stood still for B, then B would observe the Solar System
spinning at an enormous rate, while A would only just notice the occasional
tick from B.
Since SR claims this to happen when B is moving rapidly relative to A, then
B, approaching the Earth at nearly the speed of light, would see the Earth
moving at nearly the speed of light also in its journey around the sun,
speed up or slow down to match velocities, re-enter atmosphere and float
gently down on a parachute :-)
Androcles
Peter Riedt
Androcles, in nature, time does not exist. It only exists in the mind
of humans. We need it to understand the workings of nature which we
have identified in a body of knowledge called 'science'.
We can measure time using artificial devices and also can record and
compare periods of time. All this is not necessary for nature. She has
no memory nor uses clocks. Nature works by simple laws, one of which
is the law of cause and effect. The state of the universe existing at
one moment of time (as we may call it) will cause the next moment of
time to evolve. We of course can see a progression, apply our concepts
of time to it and believe nature does the same. It is merely a case of
anthropocentricity.
Peter Riedt
Androcles
"Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1d36893d.04022...@posting.google.com...
Is that a proof by assertion or a proof by opinion?
> It only exists in the mind
> of humans.
Maybe for you, not for me. You've been reading too much sci-fi.
> We need it to understand the workings of nature which we
> have identified in a body of knowledge called 'science'.
Of course.
Frank L Robeson wrote in "Physics", 1943, Macmillan & Co, New York,
"The method of science consists in observation, investigation and
explanation of the phenomena, or occurrences, in nature.When the materials
and circumstances essential to the occurrence have been found and set in
order so that the phenomenon can be reproduced at will, and the whole
transaction has been described accurately, we then say we have the law of
that phenomenon.
A physical law, or principle, is a statement by which we can predict the
effect of a given cause.
The first postulate of science affirms that the same cause always produces
the same effect. Science is based so completely on this belief that when
causes which seem to be the same produce different results, the causes are
re-examined. And invariably it has been found they were not the same."
This doesn't mean you can make pronouncements that time doesn't exist except
in the imagination.
> We can measure time using artificial devices and also can record and
> compare periods of time.
Wrong. We measure time by observing regular oscillations, and always did
before we ever created any artificial device. The day turns to night, the
cycle is repeated and counted, the year is apparent to anyone, it is snowing
here today and in 4 more lunar cycles the days will be longer than the
nights. Before many more years have elapsed, certainly less than 25, I shall
be no more. That is time. Nothing artificial about it.
> All this is not necessary for nature. She has no memory nor uses clocks.
Clock are oscillators with a counter to count the oscillations. Nature uses
oscillators, but doesn't bother with counters. I don't think you've read a
word I said. Read it again. I didn't give an opinion, I stated facts and
logical deduction, except the part about SR, where I added a comment for
amusement. You, on the other and, are stating your opinion as if it were
fact.
> Nature works by simple laws, one of which
> is the law of cause and effect. The state of the universe existing at
> one moment of time (as we may call it) will cause the next moment of
> time to evolve.
There is no effect before cause, therefore time exists.
> We of course can see a progression,
That is what I call time.
> apply our concepts
> of time to it and believe nature does the same. It is merely a case of
> anthropocentricity.
>
> Peter Riedt
All you are doing is using semantics, calling the concept of time
'progression'.
'Time' is a four letter word, and most people don't like four letter words.
There is no such thing as a fuck, its a sexual intercourse. Same meat,
different dressing.
Androcles.
eugen negut
We could not measure the time, we can only compare the duration of
phenomena!
--
Eugen Negut
Please see:
www.freephysics.org/en/a2.htm
Oriel36
So does this mean you are not part of nature ?.
It only exists in the mind
> of humans. We need it to understand the workings of nature which we
> have identified in a body of knowledge called 'science'.
>
So you located time in the mind and not in nature.
> We can measure time using artificial devices and also can record and
> compare periods of time.
So, you measure something that's in your mind and not in nature
notwithstanding that relativists seem to believe that a clock was
found under a rock,Albert found one in 1905 and declared that these
things "measure time".
All this is not necessary for nature. She has
> no memory nor uses clocks.
So nature has a mind with no memory,gee,I would like to meet this
'nature' chick whoever 'She' is.
Nature works by simple laws, one of which
> is the law of cause and effect.The state of the universe existing at
> one moment of time (as we may call it) will cause the next moment of
> time to evolve.
Time evolve from what into what ?,oh,that's right,nature has no memory
and forgets what it supposed to evolve into.
We of course can see a progression, apply our concepts
> of time to it and believe nature does the same. It is merely a case of
> anthropocentricity.
>
> Peter Riedt
Sorry lad,perhaps the next 'time' a relativists attempts to sound
profound I will close my eyes and pretend not to see that you insult
yourselves.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
Bernardz
herbert...@webtv.net says...
> Newton did not relate time to the universe,and Einstein did. Bert
>
>
Newtonian physics can incorporate a fourth dimension of time quite
successfully. The main difference is that in Newtonian physics, time is
the same for all observers.
--
The bouncer causes more fights then anyone at the bar. Yet the roughest
bars are those without a bouncer.
Observations of Bernard - No 49
Mitchell
Except for you Androcles no one seems to be able to add anything to this.
How can we talk about time if we can't see clearly it's
physical attributes? What is the substance of time?
I believe that it is a manifold.
-- Time Transformation --
Mitch Raemsch
Androcles
"Mitchell" <macro...@internetCDS.com> wrote in message
That's what you put on a car engine to take the exhaust away.
Androcles.
"Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Reagan
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." - Aldous Huxley
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
would it?" - Albert Einstein
Oriel36
> Newton did not relate time to the universe,and Einstein did. Bert
Here you go Bert,a simple graphic derived fromn Kepler's second law
which explains why the natural days are unequal and how the Equation
of Time bridge equalises the variation in the natural unequal day to
a constant 24 hour day.
http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/lectures/kepler.htm
Now,Newton said there was no equable motion corresponding to the 24
hour day (absolute time) and from the constant circular motion
compared to variation in elliptical motion in the graphic above,you
can see that technically and astronomically,Newton is correct.
"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions. It may be, that there
is no such thing as an equable motion, whereby time may be accurately
measured."
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm#time
I can reduce that passage from Newton to a simple graphic (Kepler's
second law) where variable orbital motion in tandem with constant
axial rotation generates the natural unequal day and the EoT reduces
the variation to a constant,perhaps you will appreceate why clocks
based on the 24 hour/360 degrees equivalency were developed to keep
pace with the axial rotation of the Earth rather than the combined
motion of constant axial rotation and variable orbital motion.
alen
> Newtonian physics can incorporate a fourth dimension of time quite
> successfully. The main difference is that in Newtonian physics, time is
> the same for all observers.
It appears to be a standard interpretation in SR
that time is really not the same for all observers.
Yet, if I say that a moving observer does not
share my present time, but a different time, I
am saying that the other observer does not share
the same 'now' as myself. But then I am compelled
to utter the contradictory nonsense that the other
observer is 'now' not in my 'now', because the
verb 'is' automatically always means 'is now', and
can never be used in any other way.
Alen
Mitchell
Mitch Raemsch
Oriel36
I cannot imagine why any intelligent person would consider
past,present and future to be an illusion for removing the distinction
between the terms is tantamount to insanity.However inexpressible in
words,we intuitively know what these terms mean and that there is a
distinction.
"For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present,
and future is only an illusion, even if a stubborn one." 輸lbert
Einstein.
Even restricting the terms to the investigation of natural phenomena
in the broadest possible terms,it does'nt bearing thinking why anyone
would suppose that the distinctions could be dissolved.
The past is sacred for without it how is it possible to recognise and
appreceate the achievements of our ancestors and the heritage we
inherited.
The now is also sacred for it is not up to us to misappropriate the
insights of our ancestors for the most spurious of ends and cripple
humanities desire for a better understanding of what we observe in the
night sky.
The future is the most terrible of all,relativity introduces an
intellectual atrophy to our race which infects all ahead of it,genius
is denigrated,natural phenomena becomes an enormous wordplay and worst
of all,one theory/opinion is just as good as another with no roots in
the past and nothing to pass on to other generations.
I do not pretend to be eloquent in this matter and certainly know that
the exceptional few here could see the horror of the attempting to
comprehend the quote from that guy who was simply out of control.
"For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present,
and future is only an illusion, even if a stubborn one." 輸lbert
Einstein.
You are correct,it is all the the verb 'is'.
Androcles
"Oriel36" <geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:273f8e06.04030...@posting.google.com...
> "For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present,
> Einstein.
>
>
> You are correct,it is all the the verb 'is'.
"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly,
by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of
the poles under otherwise identical conditions. "
He was wrong on that count, too.
Androcles
alen
> al...@westserv.net.au (alen) wrote in message news:<dfca704b.04030...@posting.google.com>...
> > Bernardz <Berna...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1aac7fdbf7aa0051989957@news>...
> > > Newtonian physics can incorporate a fourth dimension of time quite
> > > successfully. The main difference is that in Newtonian physics, time is
> > > the same for all observers.
> >
> > It appears to be a standard interpretation in SR
> > that time is really not the same for all observers.
> >
> > Yet, if I say that a moving observer does not
> > share my present time, but a different time, I
> > am saying that the other observer does not share
> > the same 'now' as myself. But then I am compelled
> > to utter the contradictory nonsense that the other
> > observer is 'now' not in my 'now', because the
> > verb 'is' automatically always means 'is now', and
> > can never be used in any other way.
> >
> > Alen
>
> I cannot imagine why any intelligent person would consider
> past,present and future to be an illusion for removing the distinction
> between the terms is tantamount to insanity.However inexpressible in
> words,we intuitively know what these terms mean and that there is a
> distinction.
>
> "For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present,
> Einstein.
>
> Even restricting the terms to the investigation of natural phenomena
> in the broadest possible terms,it does'nt bearing thinking why anyone
> would suppose that the distinctions could be dissolved.
>
> The past is sacred for without it how is it possible to recognise and
> appreceate the achievements of our ancestors and the heritage we
> inherited.
>
> The now is also sacred for it is not up to us to misappropriate the
> insights of our ancestors for the most spurious of ends and cripple
> humanities desire for a better understanding of what we observe in the
> night sky.
>
> The future is the most terrible of all,relativity introduces an
> intellectual atrophy to our race which infects all ahead of it,genius
> is denigrated,natural phenomena becomes an enormous wordplay and worst
> of all,one theory/opinion is just as good as another with no roots in
> the past and nothing to pass on to other generations.
>
> I do not pretend to be eloquent in this matter and certainly know that
> the exceptional few here could see the horror of the attempting to
> comprehend the quote from that guy who was simply out of control.
>
> "For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present,
> Einstein.
>
>
> You are correct,it is all the the verb 'is'.
Yes - even a genius of the stature of Albert cannot
be assumed to be always correct in everything,
just because he is a genius.
Alen
Androcles
"alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
news:dfca704b.04030...@posting.google.com...
was indeed a genius. He still has you fooled after he's dead.
Androcles
alen
> >
> > Yes - even a genius of the stature of Albert cannot
> > be assumed to be always correct in everything,
> > just because he is a genius.
> >
> > Alen
> If you define 'genius' as the greatest huckster of all time, then Einstein
> was indeed a genius. He still has you fooled after he's dead.
> Androcles
I know some people have formed such an opinion of
Einstein and, also, I can't claim that I cannot be
fooled, but I have always felt that Einstein was a
sincere seeker of objective truth in Physics, and I
have never come across anything that would change
that view.
The same, however, I can't say of some of the modern
supporters and advocates of his theories. Unmoderated
forums give them the greatest freedom to reveal, by their
behaviour, what they are. This they do, and it shows,
to me at least, that it is far easier to apply a term
like 'huckster' to them than to Albert himself.
Alen
Androcles
I'll give you an example:
refer to:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty
space."
Now, what does "In agreement with experience" mean?
That you might look stupid for disagreeing?
Then we have "we further assume".
Oh, how honest we are being.
It is clear to everyone that the assumption MUST be true.
This is the smoke that goes with the mirror later on, because no stage
magician
can do without his smoke and mirrors, his misdirection.
Only.... it isn't true, if A and B are in relative motion. What Einstein
wants is to get you to accept the 2. That;s what the fancy rhetoric is for.
2AB is not equal to AB + BA if A and B are moving.
Now he can play the game of algebra in earnest.
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
Pick the bones out of that.
The light hits the mirror and returns. You have to have a mirror, after all.
There's the 1/2, looking nice and innocent. Did you miss it?
It's 2 on the other side.
Now, focus in...
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) = t."
Note the word "measured".
When we come to section 5, we find :
"It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we obtain
V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
No "measured" here. He's denied his earler statement "with the velocity
c-v".
Okay, so maybe that was a blunder. Let's see. Back to the beginning, and we
find
"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be
called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate, and
also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable
with the former,..."
Now, the vector addition of velocities (The PoR) he intends to change to the
composition of velocities, which would be fine, IF he hadn't used vector
addition to derive it. He knows full well what he is going to do before he
does it, and he knows he is cheating. The PoR and the 2nd postulate ARE
irreconcilable, but
1) He's read H.G Well's "Time Machine" which was published when he was a
teenager,
2) he knows about MMX,
3) he knows what Lorentz has to say.
So he write a paper that puts all these together, and makes himself famous.
But now he's in trouble. He has a tiger by the tail and dare not let go. He
knows it.
So he says:
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18." - Albert
Einstein
(That's when he read "Time Machine")
and
"If A equals success, then the formula is: A=X+Y+Z. X is work. Y is play. Z
is keep your mouth shut." - Albert Einstein
Because he knows that the tiger will turn around and chew his arse if he
breathes a word.
He was a second Ptolemy, who also made Nature work by mathematics.
Ptolemy got away with it for 1400 years, and Einstein has managed 99
already.
This is what Newton said of Prolemy.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ptolemy.html
The most recent accusations of forgery made against Ptolemy came from Newton
in [12]. He begins this book by stating clearly his views:-
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.
Towards the end Newton, having claimed to prove every observation claimed by
Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:-
[Ptolemy] 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.
It is also what I say about Einstein.
Androcles
alen
> "alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
> news:dfca704b.04031...@posting.google.com...
> > "Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<UZA3c.3786$it2...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> > > >
> > > > Yes - even a genius of the stature of Albert cannot
> > > > be assumed to be always correct in everything,
> > > > just because he is a genius.
> > > >
> > > > Alen
> > > If you define 'genius' as the greatest huckster of all time, then
> Einstein
> > > was indeed a genius. He still has you fooled after he's dead.
> > > Androcles
> >
> > Alen
>
> I'll give you an example:
> refer to:
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
> "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
> 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty
> space."
>
> Now, what does "In agreement with experience" mean?
> That you might look stupid for disagreeing?
> Then we have "we further assume".
> Oh, how honest we are being.
> It is clear to everyone that the assumption MUST be true.
> This is the smoke that goes with the mirror later on, because no stage
> magician
> can do without his smoke and mirrors, his misdirection.
> Only.... it isn't true, if A and B are in relative motion. What Einstein
> wants is to get you to accept the 2. That;s what the fancy rhetoric is for.
> 2AB is not equal to AB + BA if A and B are moving.
> Now he can play the game of algebra in earnest.
>
> 1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
>
> Pick the bones out of that.
> Androcles
I see that you have formed a strong opinion
about Einstein, so I will not try to argue
you out of it, since that would achieve nothing,
I suppose, but to convince you that I was trying
to fool you as well.
Instead, I will just make a comment about the
velocity of light in Einstein's paper.
In the case of reference frames in relative
motion, we have two frames and two times,
and, with regard to the velocity of light, Einstein
switches attention from one frame to the other,
and from one time to the other, so it is necessary
to be careful to understand exactly what he is
saying.
Suppose we have frame F, with time F, and moving
frame F', with time F'. Now in frame F, the velocity
of light is always c, using time F, and, in frame F',
the velocity is always c, using time F'. But,
looking at distance in frame F', from frame F, using time F,
the velocity of light can appear to be c-v or c+v.
However, this does not contradict the principle of
the constancy of the velocity of light, which refers
to distance and time being both seen in the same frame.
Alen
Androcles
I shall place candles beside opposing walls upon which there are mirrors
mounted, that I may view from the centre of the room both candles, one
directly and one by reflection. I can turn my head at any time to look at
the other, and again see both. If I now approach a candle by walking with a
velocity v, I have an experiment. I shall not repeat the calculations
Einstein made, since they are available in his paper, a copy of which I have
referred to above. I shall, however, rely upon them for my argument.
For the candle I approach, I will use x' = x-vt, and for the candle I recede
from, I will use x'' = x+vt.
I then have
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x''/(c-v)+x''/(c+v))] =
By using the derivation Einstein provides, we arrive at
tau = (t-xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
and
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Since it is absurd that I might find two different values for tau, I cannot
find my watch to have two readings simultaneously, it follows that
(t-xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) .
A competent teenager can then determine
-v = v, or v = 0.
This contradicts my assertion that I am moving, and it follows that the
velocity of light, in my frame of reference, is c-v for the candle I recede
from and c+v for the candle I approach. We can imagine this same situation
in the absence of any medium, although a candle may be unsuitable as a
source of light.
From this I conclude that the velocity of light in empty space is very much
source dependent and not independent as claimed, and that Einstein's
mathematics are flawed.
Androcles
Oriel36
I found some of the old journals really helpful for in getting the
flavor of an era and in this matter where clocks were used to measure
a degree at the poles you can see the tie in with Newton's
gravitational theory.
http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=2&size=1&id=pt.1761.x.x.52.x.434
http://www.metrum.org/measures/index.htm
The objection to contemporary concepts is not just that they are
incorrect but that their foundations are so shallow and narrow that
they can only suit those who are so inclined to follow these things to
narrow and shallow conclusions .Even where there are large gaps such
as the division of the day into equable hours,minutes and seconds or
the formation of geometry based on 360 degrees I do not forget that
these things originated in the mind of one man and were expanded on by
many but the expansion was always in multiple directions.
Unfortunately men seem stuck in the late 19th and early 20th century
thinking which is based on errors from the 17th century and the
unsavory tandency to downplay the achievements of others to further
'originality' such as Newton failure to mention Kepler.
Androcles
There were certainly elements of pride and jealousy in Newton's character,
traits I see plainly in many contributors to this newsgroup. Sirvent the
Unscientific is a particularly bad case. Regrettably few are able to
recognise it in themselves. I have at times caught myself in the act and
given myself a rapid attitude adjustment, but doubtless it slips through
occasionally.
http://www.robertburns.plus.com/voicelouse.htm
O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us
Androcles
xxein
xxein: We can only measure TWLS, not OWLS. There is a profound
difference.
If, perhaps, you would be willing to look at things from the
Lorentzian viewpoint (identical for the incidental measurements of x
and t but not c) then you might have a clearer view of exactly how the
SR math is set up.
Additionally, if one were to completely analyse the functional
characteristics of both theories (wrt flat space), one would find that
the basis of Lorentz can be described with less non-linear
dependencies. While this might not mean that much to otherwise
physicists, it is nonetheless true.
There is much more than meets the eye. It is the physicist's job to
explore this. But most are willing to trust only their eyes.
Oriel36
Only with the greatest courtesy could you term the responses and
reactions in this forum as 'contributions',indeed most postings
reflect weaknesses where participants circle their wagons around a
concept which they understand little of and which has no roots in
history or observation.Far from being a lament,I could identify a
number of participants whoes attitude has softened but it may be in
the absence of the ability to move around information in a fruitful
way that they still remain tethered to notions which are neither good
nor right.
Inevitably it is good that data gets returned to a molten state from
the present misdirected theories and you are most certainly correct
that Albert is no more than a modern variation of Ptolemy and I
believe that the correction will come about in roughly the same
manner.It may be unfair to label the empirical approach a weakness but
I go along with Pascal in recognising a balance where presently none
exists.It goes without saying that those who achieve the most have
display this balance to a high degree while others co-exist happily
and compliment each other,the correspondence between Faraday (who
could'nt add 2 +2) and Maxwell who was more mathematical than the
intuitive Faraday.
"But in the intuitive mind the principles are found in common use and
are before the eyes of everybody. One has only to look, and no effort
is necessary; it is only a question of good eyesight, but it must be
good, for the principles are so subtle and so numerous that it is
almost impossible but that some escape notice. Now the omission of one
principle leads to error; thus one must have very clear sight to see
all the principles and, in the next place, an accurate mind not to
draw false deductions from known principles."
http://www.ccel.org/p/pascal/pensees/pensees02.htm
When principles become so subtle and numerous,the relationship between
clocks,geometry and astronomy for instance,the last thing that anyone
should do is give into the temptation of misdirecting common terms
such as 'clocks measure time' when behind it is a vast technical and
astronomical arena which has very little to do with 'time' and a great
deal to do with geometrical adjustments,astronomers for their purpose
and navigators for another purpose.
Regrettably few are able to
> recognise it in themselves. I have at times caught myself in the act and
> given myself a rapid attitude adjustment, but doubtless it slips through
> occasionally.
What I like most about Newton is his rapid adjustments,he does not
seem to have the slightest trace of prejudice in handling material,if
he finds the French figure for the geometry of the Earth wrong he
turns to the ancient Eygptians rather than contend with Picard's
result.I enjoy your contributions in much the same manner for even
where I may find contention in areas which do not naturally mesh with
yours,I either put it down to deficiencies in my own understanding or
that I may have taken my own route and given it another direction.I
have a horror of elitisism but by default it appears that others will
find themselves in that position by virtue of dropping contention with
a historical fable which generates notions and cnclusions which are
either too narrow or too shallow.
> http://www.robertburns.plus.com/voicelouse.htm
> O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
> To see oursels as others see us
> Androcles
Why set ourselves up as something we are not for that is the beginning
of prejudice.It has always been known that these faults are common to
those with gifts of high reason but these gifts are negated by pride
and pretensiousness, if Newton had given credit where it was due to
another man while still using his material his work would not have
suffered the denigration it did from the early 20th century onwards.
The direct cause of the contemporary dismal intellectual atrophy is
that there are not enough men who can pass through late 19th century/
early 20th century concepts which in themselves amount to a modern
variation of Ptolomy's tinkering when before us exists a vast
unexplored cosmological arena more exciting and spectacular than the
heliocentric system of our predecessors.
alen
> I shall place candles beside opposing walls upon which there are mirrors
> mounted, that I may view from the centre of the room both candles, one
> directly and one by reflection. I can turn my head at any time to look at
> the other, and again see both. If I now approach a candle by walking with a
> velocity v, I have an experiment. I shall not repeat the calculations
> Einstein made, since they are available in his paper, a copy of which I have
> referred to above. I shall, however, rely upon them for my argument.
> For the candle I approach, I will use x' = x-vt, and for the candle I recede
> from, I will use x'' = x+vt.
> I then have
> 1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
> and
> 1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x''/(c-v)+x''/(c+v))] =
> tau(x',0,0,t+x''/(c+v)).
> By using the derivation Einstein provides, we arrive at
> tau = (t-xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> and
> tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> Since it is absurd that I might find two different values for tau, I cannot
> find my watch to have two readings simultaneously, it follows that
> (t-xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) .
> A competent teenager can then determine
> -v = v, or v = 0.
As I understand, tau refers to time in the moving
frame, which means that, if you are walking, the
mirrors and candles are in the moving frame relative
to you. Therefore, you must have clocks mounted on
each mirror and, as SR allows nonsimultaneity in one
frame when viewed from the other, the mirror clocks can
show different values of tau. So tau doesn't refer to
the time on your watch.
> This contradicts my assertion that I am moving, and it follows that the
> velocity of light, in my frame of reference, is c-v for the candle I recede
> from and c+v for the candle I approach. We can imagine this same situation
> in the absence of any medium, although a candle may be unsuitable as a
> source of light.
> From this I conclude that the velocity of light in empty space is very much
> source dependent and not independent as claimed, and that Einstein's
> mathematics are flawed.
> Androcles
Yes, if you are using the time on your watch, you
can regard the velocity of light, in the moving
frame, as c+v or c-v, because you are using distance
seen in the moving frame, and time seen in the
stationary frame, and not both seen in the same frame.
These matters can be difficult because, in SR, we have two
frames with two distances and two times as, let us say,
s and s', and t and t'(tau).
Therefore we can have, for the apparent velocity of
light, s/t, or s'/t', or s/t', or s'/t, which can
easily cause difficulties. Only s/t and s'/t' must
be = c.
Alen
Androcles
and read different times in the same frame. That's just as bad.
I say the light velocities are c+v and v-c.
Its your problem now, you sort it out.
Androcles
Androcles
I've just explained to Shuba,
x' = cosh(A)[x - t tanh(A)]
t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
How to turn apples into oranges.
x = 4 oranges,
t = 5 apples,
x' = 0 oranges
t' = 3 apples
where A = (4 oranges)/(5 apples) because apples grow faster than oranges.
As the moron Bilge says, it must be right or linear algebra would be wrong.
If you can rotate (x,t), converting length into time, I can convert oranges
into apples.
BOTH are gibberish, (x,t) is NOT a vector, time has no inverse.
You are manipulating scalars, not vectors.
Learn the difference, Minkowski never did.
BTW, I chose a 3-4-5 right triangle to make is easy for you to understand in
terms of Pythagoras.
Androcles
alen
> I say the light velocities are c+v and v-c.
> Its your problem now, you sort it out.
> Androcles
OK - I'll take it that we have both got as far
as we are going to get in this conversation!
Alen
Androcles
The derivation of
tau = (t-vx/c^2)*beta,
xi = (x-vt)*beta,
eta = y,
zeta = z.
where beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),
should, if v = 0, lead to
tau = t,
xi = x,
eta = y,
zeta = z.
However, it doesn't.
The velocity v = x/t, as you learned when you were much younger. Even people
with little mathematics and no calculus understand 60 mph is 60 miles in one
hour. Americans, when asked "How far is it from New York to Miami?" will
reply "About 22 hours" instead of "About 1300 miles."
Let us put this known velocity into the equations. We do not need the
instantaneous velocity, the velocity is a constant one.
xi = (x- (x/t)*t)*beta,
from which it is then immediately apparent that
xi = (x- x)*beta
= 0 =/= x
for all v.
Yet if we set v = 0 into the original equation,
xi = (x- vt)*beta,
= (x-0)* beta
= x. [A]
Nobody said x has to be zero.
tau = (t-x^2/t.c^2)*beta
tau = t(1-x^2/t^2.c^2)*beta
but
x^2/t^2 = v^2
and
(1-v^2/c^2) = beta ^2
so
tau = t.beta
Ok, the Lorentz transforms are
tau= t.beta
xi = x when v = 0, otherwise xi = 0,
eta = y,
zeta = z.
By the Principle of Relativity, we can consider ourselves at rest, initially
in Miami, and have NewYork come to us. It certainly looks that way on the
plane, the ground is passing beneath us and going backwards.
Now we have
v = xi/tau,
= 0/tau
= 0 [B]
Either way, v = 0 [A] or v = 0 [B].
We are simply not allowed to use any other value for v.
Relativity is much ado about nothing.
Androcles
Oriel36
I did'nt agree with what Newton attempted to do with 'measuring time'
and splitting it into absolute and relative, for the format he choose
was astronomically based and fundamentally the difference between a
clock which is designed to keep a constant pace with a pace that
varies with each axial rotation,namely the natural unequal day.
Geometrically you can convert distance into time and make clock
comparisons to work out the distance,the compromise is that there is
observed motion corresponding to the absolute day or what amounts to
the same thing,the 24 hour clock day via axial rotation.When Newton
goes to work on Kepler's planetary laws with a gravitational treatment
he considers only the orbital motion and dispenses with the constant
axial rotation of the Earth which generates the equable 24 hour
clock/absolute time.The problem with this is that planetary longitudes
and the time difference which carry them in terms of the 24 hour/360
degree equivalency got shifted to geocentric longitudes based on the
sidereal value developed by Huygens and Flamsteed.The point is that
Newton was well aware of the astronomical correction which astronomers
employed daily in their observations but he never fully understood
it,it shows as he tries to sort out the data Flamsteed was supplying
him with the sidereal value.
"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.
This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all
astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions
of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth,
or the earth about the sun. And as to the measures of the periodic
times, all astronomers are agreed about them. But for the dimensions
of the orbits, Kepler and Bullialdus, above all others, have
determined them from observations with the greatest accuracy; and the
mean distances corresponding to the periodic times differ but
insensibly from those which they have assigned, and for the most part
fall in between them; as we may see from the following table."
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
When the complex motion of the Earth's constant axial rotation and
variable orbital motion are combined to generate the natural unequal
day nothing suggests a 'clockwork' Newtonian picture,I can appreceate
where he is correct and spot his astronomical weaknesses but they are
weaknesses borne out of unfamiliarity rather than insincerity and
relativity is all insincerity.
> BOTH are gibberish, (x,t) is NOT a vector, time has no inverse.
> You are manipulating scalars, not vectors.
> Learn the difference, Minkowski never did.
> BTW, I chose a 3-4-5 right triangle to make is easy for you to understand in
> terms of Pythagoras.
> Androcles
Thank you and I mean that.
Oriel36
I made a typo in the previous post as there is no observed motion
corresponding to the 24 hour day via the 24 hour/360 degree
equivalency for the rotation of the Earth,in other words there is no
validity to modelling the motion of the Earth using the Sun and stars
simultaneously and a great mistake occurs in attempting to make the
sidereal value valid.
http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/Members/v02n01/a/NFS0201a004.gif
I recognise that you disagree at present but much of Newton's
absolute/relative time distinctions and his phrasing it as the
Equation of Time rely on the older Sun based reference for a clock
rather than Flamsteed's later isochronos sidereal value.Flamsteed is
not wrong but later scientists inevitably linked the Earth's 360
degree rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion and the clock
value of 23 hours 56 min 04 seconds whereas the EoT supports the 24
hour/360 degree equivalency.No small matter.
Androcles
You can compare the ratio of time to distance and call it velocity, leaving
time and distance as independent quantities. That is vastly different to
changing one into the other.
In a rotation about the origin from A to B,
Y
|
y / B
| /
| /
|/_______A ___
O x X
x reduces as y increases, and the length OB is constant. By dropping a
perpendicular onto the X-axis to x, we have x = cos(phi), y=sin(y) and
cos^2+sin^2 =1^2, which is is simply Pythagoras.
x has reduces and y increases as the angle increases.
But it makes no sense to label the Y-axis as the T-axis, T is not distance.
One might just as well label the Y-axis as M axis, and give up some length
for mass, or label the axes APPLE and ORANGE. That is total nonsense.
In relativity, a circle (a special ellipse of eccentricity 0), is not used.
Instead the ellipse has the y-axis as the minor axis, the x-axis as the
major axis. The trig identity
MinorAxis = MajorAxis * sqrt(1-eccentricity^2)
makes the use of sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) immediately apparent.
|
y / B
| /
| /
|/_________F__________A ___
O x X
The line OB does not remain constant, but the total of FBF' (where F' is the
other focus, off the left of the page, equidistant from from O, does remain
constant. Thus you can construct an ellipse with two thumbtacks and loop of
string. I made an elliptical table with this method, years ago.
Hmm... I have hankering to abandon physics and cut wood again. It is an
enjoyable pastime.
Thank you for the Dinky blunder, I have it as a web page.
It clearly demonstrates the disgusting rat's lack of knowledge of the
subject he professes to understand.
Androcles
Paul B. Andersen
"Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> skrev i melding
news:Nd%4c.2902$V11...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Well done, Androcles.
Using the same brilliant mathematics, we also have:
The derivation of
tau = t
xi = (x-vt)
eta = y,
zeta = z.
should, if v = 0, lead to
tau = t,
xi = x,
eta = y,
zeta = z.
However, it doesn't.
The velocity v = x/t, as you learned when you were much younger.
Let us put this known velocity into the equations. We do not need the
instantaneous velocity, the velocity is a constant one.
xi = (x- (x/t)*t),
from which it is then immediately apparent that
xi = (x - x)
= 0 =/= x
for all v.
Yet if we set v = 0 into the original equation,
xi = (x- vt)
= (x-0)
= x [A]
Ok, the Gallilean transforms are
tau= t
xi = x when v = 0, otherwise xi = 0,
eta = y,
zeta = z.
By the Principle of Relativity, we can consider ourselves at rest, initially
in Miami, and have NewYork come to us. It certainly looks that way on the
plane, the ground is passing beneath us and going backwards.
Now we have
v = xi/tau,
= 0/tau
= 0 [B]
Either way, v = 0 [A] or v = 0 [B].
We are simply not allowed to use any other value for v.
Galilean relativity and thus Newtonian mechanics is much
ado about nothing.
Paul
alen
> > > I say the light velocities are c+v and v-c.
> > > Its your problem now, you sort it out.
> > > Androcles
> >
> > OK - I'll take it that we have both got as far
> > as we are going to get in this conversation!
> >
> > Alen
> Then you are burying you head in the sand.So be it.
>
> The derivation of
>
> tau = (t-vx/c^2)*beta,
> xi = (x-vt)*beta,
> eta = y,
> zeta = z.
>
> where beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),
>
> should, if v = 0, lead to
>
> tau = t,
> xi = x,
> eta = y,
> zeta = z.
>
> However, it doesn't.
>
> The velocity v = x/t, as you learned when you were much younger.
> Androcles
I will just comment on this.
Possibly your hostility to SR is preventing
you from examining it with the patience
it requires. If so, I would remark that I
think that it is dangerous to be too much of
a partisan for or against any theory, since it
will undermine the essential, patient, and
sometimes laborious objectivity.
In the transformation equation, x does not stand
for vt. I have a diagram on my page
http://home.westserv.net.au/~alen1/Physics/aSpacelikeExperiments.htm
which shows what the transformation equation
refers to.
Alen
Oriel36
The great difficulty with Newton's application of 'time' distinctions
is that in treating Keplerian orbits he simply ignores the Earth's
constant axial rotation within variable orbital motion and treats the
Earth's orbital motion alone.
The problem is that when Newton is defining and distinguishing
absolute from relative time he makes use of the Equation of Time which
equalises the variation in the natural day to a constant 24 hour
day.If you treat the Earth's orbital motion alone you can swap
things and say that the Earth moving around the Sun is the same as the
Sun moving around the Earth but what you cannot do is treat the
Earth's axial rotation and orbital motion as one movement for
again,the Earth has a constant axial rotation and a variable orbital
motion.
"PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.
This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all
astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions
of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth,
or the earth about the sun. And as to the measures of the periodic
times, all astronomers are agreed about them. But for the dimensions
of the orbits, Kepler and Bullialdus, above all others, have
determined them from observations with the greatest accuracy; and the
mean distances corresponding to the periodic times differ but
insensibly from those which they have assigned, and for the most part
fall in between them; as we may see from the following table."
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
Later scientists simply assumed that heliocentric longitudes and
geocentric longitudes were the same and shifted the Earth's rotation
to equable motion,23 hours 56 min 04 sec to stellar circumpolar motion
and 24 hours to the Sun.
http://www.absolutebeginnersastronomy.com/sidereal.gif
> In a rotation about the origin from A to B,
> Y
> |
> y / B
> | /
> | /
> |/_______A ___
> O x X
>
> x reduces as y increases, and the length OB is constant. By dropping a
> perpendicular onto the X-axis to x, we have x = cos(phi), y=sin(y) and
> cos^2+sin^2 =1^2, which is is simply Pythagoras.
> x has reduces and y increases as the angle increases.
> But it makes no sense to label the Y-axis as the T-axis, T is not distance.
> One might just as well label the Y-axis as M axis, and give up some length
> for mass, or label the axes APPLE and ORANGE. That is total nonsense.
>
I now understand where you are coming from and even though I am
naturally not comfortable without application to celestial
phenomena,at least the application of Newtonian mechanics to Keplerian
data may better suit your avenue.In a highly convoluted
maneuver,Newton,after determining astronomically that the 24 hour day
or absolute time corresponds to no observed equable celestial motion
(hence the Equation of Time) then switches it to 'relative time'.
Rather than trying to sort the following passage out,it is perhaps
better to recognise that Newton is using the equable 24 hour clock to
calculate the Earth's orbital motion alone in accordance with Kepler's
planetary laws and defining 'time' into absolute/relative is not only
an unecessary complication but creates this awful relativistic mess.
"Wherefore relative quantities are not the quantities themselves,
whose names they bear, but those sensible measures of them (either
accurate or inaccurate), which are commonly used instead of the
measured quantities themselves. And if the meaning of words is to be
determined by their use, then by the names time, space, place and
motion, their measures are properly to be understood; and the
expression will be unusual, and purely mathematical, if the measured
quantities themselves are meant "
> In relativity, a circle (a special ellipse of eccentricity 0), is not used.
> Instead the ellipse has the y-axis as the minor axis, the x-axis as the
> major axis. The trig identity
> MinorAxis = MajorAxis * sqrt(1-eccentricity^2)
> makes the use of sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) immediately apparent.
> |
> y / B
> | /
> | /
> |/_________F__________A ___
> O x X
> The line OB does not remain constant, but the total of FBF' (where F' is the
> other focus, off the left of the page, equidistant from from O, does remain
> constant. Thus you can construct an ellipse with two thumbtacks and loop of
> string. I made an elliptical table with this method, years ago.
> Hmm... I have hankering to abandon physics and cut wood again. It is an
> enjoyable pastime.
>
Stay as these guys are going to be put in the spotlight next year and
they do not have the aether/absolute space association and after
all,Albert was'nt interested in Maxwell or Lorentz,he was interested
in Newton.
I apologise for the haste in these postings but outside influences at
the moment leave only a short time to accomplish a response.
Androcles
We fly the same colours, but are heading in opposite directions.
You explore the past, and discover how the present came to be.
I accept the present and wish to guide the future.
Without doubt those that are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it,
and your research is of value to me. I hope it continues.
I cannot, however, indulge myself too deeply into the characters of the
players involved. My objective is to understand the workings of Nature, not
of the minds of men that went before me. I listen to the music, not the
orchestra, not the conductor, not the composer. If one violinist plays out
of tune, or plays his own tune at variance with the remainder, then that
violinist is no musician. I find the inharmonious squeakings of Einstein to
be as loud and contradictory to the music of Nature, as terrible as any
heavy metal band in the midst of the second movement of Brahms' fourth
symphony.
May we continue to fly under the same flag, though we go different ways, and
continue to pass again these same waters.
Androcles
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:c32gj3$hso$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
> Well done, Androcles.
Thank you.
>
> Using the same brilliant mathematics, we also have:
>
> The derivation of
>
> tau = t
> xi = (x-vt)
Nonsense.
xi = x+vt.
You never could get your signs right, Andersen.
Androcles
Androcles
Hostility implies emotion.
This has nothing to do with hatred or feelings, and everything to do with
mathematics and logic.
Possibly you haven't even come close to examining it with the patience I
have.
Possibly you are simply intoxicated on time dilation.
Possibly you don't realize that
x' = cosh(A)[x - t tanh(A)]
t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)]
where A = atanh(v)
has the same result as
t' = (t-vx/c^2)*beta,
x' = (x-vt)*beta ?
How to turn apples into oranges.
x = 4 oranges,
t = 5 apples,
x' = 0 oranges
t' = 3 apples
where A = (4 oranges)/(5 apples) because apples grow faster than oranges.
If you can rotate (x,t), converting length into time, I can convert oranges
into apples.
You are manipulating scalars, not vectors.
> If so, I would remark that I
> think that it is dangerous to be too much of
> a partisan for or against any theory, since it
> will undermine the essential, patient, and
> sometimes laborious objectivity.
It is not so. I am no partisan to any theory. There is no politics in this.
Nature doesn't work by popular vote. Objectivity is everything.
>
> In the transformation equation, x does not stand
> for vt. I have a diagram on my page
> http://home.westserv.net.au/~alen1/Physics/aSpacelikeExperiments.htm
> which shows what the transformation equation
> refers to.
You have the equation x' = gamma(x-vt).
That is what I've used, except I used Einstein's beta for your gamma and
Einstein's xi for your x'.
There can only be one value for v, and that is x/t.
I'm not saying x =vt, I'm saying v =x/t.
x' = gamma(x-vt).
= gamma(x-(x/t)t).
= gamma(x-x)
= gamma *0
= 0.
Obviously I can say dx/dt to give an instanteous velocity, and equally as
obviously
if I drive for a full hour at 60 mph, I travel 60 miles.
Actually, in Newtonian Mechanics, x' = x+vt.
Time increasing down the page.
0----------------x t = 0
0----------------x----x' t = 1, v =5
0----------------x----------x' t = 2, v = 5
0----------------x----------------x' t = 3, v = 5
x' = x+vt = 5,10,15
--------------0x t = 0, v = -5
--------0x'----x t = 1, v = -5
---0x'---------x t = 2, v = -5
0x'------------x t = 3, v = -5
x' = x-vt = 0.
Think about it.
Androcles.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:JHs5c.4575$ra4....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
[snip]
> You have the equation x' = gamma(x-vt).
> That is what I've used, except I used Einstein's beta for your gamma and
> Einstein's xi for your x'.
>
> There can only be one value for v, and that is x/t.
> I'm not saying x =vt, I'm saying v =x/t.
"I'm not saying x =vt, I'm saying v =x/t."
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Think.html
Dirk Vdm
alen
[...]
> Androcles.
Yes. My remarks were intended to be helpful.
Sorry, therefore, that I misunderstood your
state of mind!
Alen
Androcles
"alen" <al...@westserv.net.au>
SNIPPED
in message news:dfca704b.04031...@posting.google.com...
> "Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<JHs5c.4575$ra4....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> [...]
which I'll replace here.
Alen (misguided):
> In the transformation equation, x does not stand
> for vt. I have a diagram on my page
> http://home.westserv.net.au/~alen1/Physics/aSpacelikeExperiments.htm
> which shows what the transformation equation
> refers to.
To which I replied:
Androcles.
And then Alen said:
> Yes. My remarks were intended to be helpful.
> Sorry, therefore, that I misunderstood your
> state of mind!
>
> Alen
My logic were intended to be helpful and objective.
Knocking the chess pieces over doesn't win you the game.
Rather, it indicates childishness.
I've set the board back up again. It's your move.
Do you resign, or do you wish to play on?
Androcles.
alen
> Alen (misguided):
> > In the transformation equation, x does not stand
> > for vt. I have a diagram on my page
> > http://home.westserv.net.au/~alen1/Physics/aSpacelikeExperiments.htm
> > which shows what the transformation equation
> > refers to.
>
> To which I replied:
> You have the equation x' = gamma(x-vt).
> That is what I've used, except I used Einstein's beta for your gamma and
> Einstein's xi for your x'.
>
> There can only be one value for v, and that is x/t.
> I'm not saying x =vt, I'm saying v =x/t.
>
> x' = gamma(x-vt).
> = gamma(x-(x/t)t).
> = gamma(x-x)
> = gamma *0
> = 0.
In answer to this I would say that, when you write
(x/t)t, you are assuming that the two 't's are the
same, and cancel out. I would argue that either they are
not the same, or the two 'x's are not the same.
>
> Androcles.
>
> And then Alen said:
>
> > Yes. My remarks were intended to be helpful.
> > Sorry, therefore, that I misunderstood your
> > state of mind!
> >
> > Alen
>
> My logic were intended to be helpful and objective.
> Knocking the chess pieces over doesn't win you the game.
> Rather, it indicates childishness.
> I've set the board back up again. It's your move.
> Do you resign, or do you wish to play on?
> Androcles.
I haven't explained my position. I don't like to
wrestle with you like an opponent, or make an argument to
be a contest, in which one side must 'win', and one
must concede 'defeat'. This, in my view, is completely
out of place in an arena that should be devoted to the
pursuit of objective truth.
Only if an argument can be helpful, is it worth anything.
Therefore, I like to withdraw as soon as I feel I have
completely stated my position.
Alen
Androcles
> "Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<vaI5c.15113$ra4....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> > Alen (misguided):
> > > In the transformation equation, x does not stand
> > > for vt. I have a diagram on my page
> > > http://home.westserv.net.au/~alen1/Physics/aSpacelikeExperiments.htm
> > > which shows what the transformation equation
> > > refers to.
> >
> > To which I replied:
> > You have the equation x' = gamma(x-vt).
> > That is what I've used, except I used Einstein's beta for your gamma and
> > Einstein's xi for your x'.
> >
> > There can only be one value for v, and that is x/t.
> > I'm not saying x =vt, I'm saying v =x/t.
> >
> > x' = gamma(x-vt).
> > = gamma(x-(x/t)t).
> > = gamma(x-x)
> > = gamma *0
> > = 0.
>
> In answer to this I would say that, when you write
> (x/t)t, you are assuming that the two 't's are the
> same, and cancel out. I would argue that either they are
> not the same, or the two 'x's are not the same.
0-----------------xx'
1-----------------x--x'
2-----------------x----x'
3-----------------x------x'
4-----------------x--------x'
|> vt >|
v = 2 dashes per vertical line, each line representing 1 unit of time.
x' = x+vt.
How can x' not be where it is unless v = '--'/(line) ?
Similarly,
|< -vt <|
0----------x'--------x
1----------x'------x
2----------x'----x
3----------x'--x
4----------x'x
5---------xx'
6-------x--x'
7-----x----x'
x' = x - vt,
or 0 = x-vt
How can x not be where it is unless v = (negative)'--'/(line) ?
> >
> > Androcles.
> >
> > And then Alen said:
> >
> > > Yes. My remarks were intended to be helpful.
> > > Sorry, therefore, that I misunderstood your
> > > state of mind!
> > >
> > > Alen
> >
> > My logic were intended to be helpful and objective.
> > Knocking the chess pieces over doesn't win you the game.
> > Rather, it indicates childishness.
> > I've set the board back up again. It's your move.
> > Do you resign, or do you wish to play on?
> > Androcles.
>
> I haven't explained my position. I don't like to
> wrestle with you like an opponent, or make an argument to
> be a contest, in which one side must 'win', and one
> must concede 'defeat'. This, in my view, is completely
> out of place in an arena that should be devoted to the
> pursuit of objective truth.
>
> Only if an argument can be helpful, is it worth anything.
> Therefore, I like to withdraw as soon as I feel I have
> completely stated my position.
>
> Alen
Fair comment. I have a great deal of experience with relativists that, when
faced with irrefutable logic, snip my argument and resort to insult. Whilst
you did not insult, you snipped without responding. I am prepared to listen
to any point you wish to make, but if I find it to be fallacious I shall
respond with explanation. I do not expect my response to be ignored.
You mentioned you web page, I read it, I responded.
x' = x-vt = 0 and v = (x'-x)/t with or without any gamma to scale it by.
If you prefer, x' =x when t = 0 + constant, I adopted the convention that
the constant was not required for the purpose of discussion.
Feel free to withdraw at anytime, but do me the courtesy of acknowledging
acquiescence instead of making trite comments about state of mind.
Androcles
Dirk Van de moortel
"alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message news:dfca704b.04031...@posting.google.com...
> "Androcles" <jp006...@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<vaI5c.15113$ra4....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> > Alen (misguided):
> > > In the transformation equation, x does not stand
> > > for vt. I have a diagram on my page
> > > http://home.westserv.net.au/~alen1/Physics/aSpacelikeExperiments.htm
> > > which shows what the transformation equation
> > > refers to.
> >
> > To which I replied:
> > You have the equation x' = gamma(x-vt).
> > That is what I've used, except I used Einstein's beta for your gamma and
> > Einstein's xi for your x'.
> >
> > There can only be one value for v, and that is x/t.
> > I'm not saying x =vt, I'm saying v =x/t.
> >
> > x' = gamma(x-vt).
> > = gamma(x-(x/t)t).
> > = gamma(x-x)
> > = gamma *0
> > = 0.
>
> In answer to this I would say that, when you write
> (x/t)t, you are assuming that the two 't's are the
> same, and cancel out. I would argue that either they are
> not the same, or the two 'x's are not the same.
And then you probably wonder why Androcles thinks that
relativity is nonsense?
Dirk Vdm
alen
> > I haven't explained my position. I don't like to
> > wrestle with you like an opponent, or make an argument to
> > be a contest, in which one side must 'win', and one
> > must concede 'defeat'. This, in my view, is completely
> > out of place in an arena that should be devoted to the
> > pursuit of objective truth.
> >
> > Only if an argument can be helpful, is it worth anything.
> > Therefore, I like to withdraw as soon as I feel I have
> > completely stated my position.
> >
> > Alen
> Fair comment. I have a great deal of experience with relativists that, when
> faced with irrefutable logic, snip my argument and resort to insult. Whilst
> you did not insult, you snipped without responding. I am prepared to listen
> to any point you wish to make, but if I find it to be fallacious I shall
> respond with explanation. I do not expect my response to be ignored.
I cannot discuss your illustration because I can't see
how it illustrates the transformation equation, in which
x' is a distance in a moving frame and x is a distance
in a stationary frame.
> You mentioned you web page, I read it, I responded.
> x' = x-vt = 0 and v = (x'-x)/t with or without any gamma to scale it by.
> If you prefer, x' =x when t = 0 + constant, I adopted the convention that
> the constant was not required for the purpose of discussion.
> Feel free to withdraw at anytime, but do me the courtesy of acknowledging
> acquiescence instead of making trite comments about state of mind.
>
> Androcles
To withdraw doesn't mean acquiescence. It means that
there is no point in going back and forth forever
when we are not going to agree. I prefer to agree
to disagree rather than turn the matter into a contest,
as I mentioned above.
Alen
Androcles
anyway.
If two supposedly reasonable people disagree on a point of mathematics, then
one has failed to reason.
If you think you have completely stated you position, then withdraw. I am
prepared to discuss what is wrong with your point of view, you wish to be
obstinate. It's your state of mind, after all. Continue with your magical
'gamma' which you cannot derive.
So be it.
Androcles.
Oriel36
> Gerald, you and I are as two ships passing.
> We fly the same colours, but are heading in opposite directions.
> You explore the past, and discover how the present came to be.
> I accept the present and wish to guide the future.
> Without doubt those that are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it,
> and your research is of value to me. I hope it continues.
The future will always before us in our children who rely on us to be
as sincere and act in their best interests as possible.A true parent
knows from experience the world he lives in and does not rely on
second hand testimony to tell him what to think,what to do and what
to leave undone for we would amount to scavengers and there are many
here.The rogue can always smile at his cunning but in a case like this
relativistic contributions amount to no more than second hand cunning
which is why the original texts of the Principia with its faults and
all are rarely if never discussed.
This is no resignation or lament for there has never been a period in
the history of humanity where men have not come through these awful
periods where fundamentalism prevails.That a man can chose to serve
his children and humanity sure is one hard thing to do,the effort can
make one weary with no promise that one day will be different from the
next but in rediscovering the heritage that got buried to make way for
the most spurious intellectual concept ever to emerge on the
planet,it is well worth it.
Perhaps we can do no better than live and die among an adoring family
or to know that we serve humanity as best we can,faults and all.
> I cannot, however, indulge myself too deeply into the characters of the
> players involved. My objective is to understand the workings of Nature, not
> of the minds of men that went before me. I listen to the music, not the
> orchestra, not the conductor, not the composer. If one violinist plays out
> of tune, or plays his own tune at variance with the remainder, then that
> violinist is no musician. I find the inharmonious squeakings of Einstein to
> be as loud and contradictory to the music of Nature, as terrible as any
> heavy metal band in the midst of the second movement of Brahms' fourth
> symphony.
> May we continue to fly under the same flag, though we go different ways, and
> continue to pass again these same waters.
> Androcles
It is the sheer undisciplined disregard for observations,history,the
ingenuity of men and the shallowness and narrowness of the outlook
which renders the magnificant subject material remote from humanity.
Thank you Androcles and our paths will cross again no doubt.I had
liked the effects of the work of one genius on another by way of
Tolstoy and Beethoven,hopefully it is fitting here.
"And a terrible thing is music in gen-
eral. What is it ? Why does it do what it does?
They say that music stirs the soul. Stupidity!
A lie! It acts, it acts frightfully (I speak for
myself), but not in an ennobling way. It acts
neither in an ennobling nor a debasing way, but
in an irritating way. How shall I say it? Music
makes me forget my real situation. It trans-
ports me into a state which is not my own. Un-
der the influence of music I really seem to feel
what I do not feel, to understand what I do not
understand, to have powers which I cannot have.
Music seems to me to act like yawning or laugh-
ter; I have no desire to sleep, but I yawn when
I see others yawn; with no reason to laugh, I
laugh when I hear others laugh. And music
transports me immediately into the condition of
soul in which he who wrote the music found
himself at that time. I become confounded with
his soul, and with him I pass from one condition
to another. But why that? I know nothing
about it? But he who wrote Beethoven's 'Kreut-
zer Sonata' knew well why he found himself in a
certain condition. That condition led him to
certain actions, and for that reason to him had a meaning, but to me
none, none whatever. And
that is why music provokes an excitement which
it does not bring to a conclusion. For instance,
a military march is played; the soldier passes
to the sound of this march, and the music is fin-
ished. A dance is played; I have finished danc-
ing, and the music is finished. A mass is sung;
I receive the sacrament, and again the music is
finished. But any other music provokes an ex-
citement, and this excitement is not accompanied
by the thing that needs properly to be done, and
that is why music is so dangerous, and some-
times acts so frightfully.
For
instance, should they be allowed to play this
'Kreutzer Sonata,' the first
presto,
-- and there
are many like it, -- in parlors, among ladies wear-
ing low necked dresses, or in concerts, then finish the piece, receive
the applause, and then
begin another piece? These things should be
played under certain circumstances, only in cases
where it is necessary to incite certain actions
corresponding to the music. But to incite an
energy of feeling which corresponds to neither
the time nor the place, and is expended in noth-
ing, cannot fail to act dangerously. On me in
particular this piece acted in a frightful manner.
One would have said that new sentiments, new
virtualities, of which I was formerly ignorant,
had developed in me. 'Ah, yes, that's it! Not
at all as I lived and thought before! This is the
right way to live!'
"Thus I spoke to my soul as I listened to that
music. What was this new thing that I thus
learned? That I did not realize, but the con-
sciousness of this indefinite state filled me with
joy."
'Kreutzer Sonata,' Leo Tolstoy
Androcles
animal instinct of the relativist, self-glorying smug conceited arrogant
fool that he is, ever evolved among decent human beings. Tribal law should
have had him ousted to the wilderness long ago,and his traits be bred out.
He is the intellectual terrorist, the predator, and humanity is his prey.
Yet we accept the idiot savant out of our own compassion. Why do we do this?
If they play music such a Brahm's 4th Symphony in Heaven, I shall seriously
consider becoming a Christian.
Androcles