University physics textbooks mislead, no proof of SR.
josX
jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message
news:<aj079n$ekr$1...@news1.xs4all.nl>...
> In article <aj05d2$mjd$7...@venus.btinternet.com>, Franz Heymann wrote:
> >
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> >news:airugj$n05$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >
> >> So, this is exactly how physics students are introduced to
> >> relativity theory.
> >
> >Yes. In some syllabuses. There are more than one way to approach SR.
> >
> >> These students will then have to pass
> >> exams reproducing relativity later, in order to get their
> >> first-year graduation. Failing such graduations means obvious
> >> removal from university.
> >
> >Yes, correctly so if they cannot show that they are comprehending what
> >is being taught.
>
> They need to /reproduce/, which is not the same as understanding.
>
I don't have a copy of the text with me but I would bet that at the end
of chapter 14 there are problems in which the student must demonstrate
some understanding of SR in order to solve. I would also bet that many
of the problems given there are not of the "write down the Lorentz
Transformation equations" type where only reproducing what was mentioned
in the chapter is asked for.
The educational theory is that if the student solves problems utilizing
SR then the student will improve his/her understanding of it. There has
been a lot of discussion and research into this educational theory as
applied to teaching physics.
Arf!
Arfur
[snip]
josX
>>In article <3d54025c$1...@corp.newsgroups.com>, Herman Trivilino wrote:
>>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote ...
>>>>>> These students will then have to pass
>>>>>> exams reproducing relativity later, in order to get their
>>>>>> first-year graduation. Failing such graduations means obvious
>>>>>> removal from university.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, correctly so if they cannot show that they are comprehending what
>>>>>is being taught.
>>>>
>>>>They need to /reproduce/, which is not the same as understanding.
>>>
>>>facts on an examination educators are forced to assume that either you are
>>>too stupid to learn or too lazy to bother to learn. Either way, like the
>>>umpire said, "You're outta there!".
>>
>>Instead of standing in front of a class and proclaiming a lot of stuff,
>>asking the students to reproduce it (like a stage player has to learn his
>>text), you could explain *why* things are thought to be like that, or
>>you could present the experimental results, or you could give students
>>materials with which they could do experiments and find things out for
>>themselves.
>
> I take it you have never had a physics class on the level of the Marion
> and Thornton's book. I have. The homework was NEVER "asking the
> students to reproduce it (like a stage player has to learn his text)"
I have.
> We were asked to solve relativistic problems where we had to
> demonstrate an understanding of SR. We had to apply what had been
> explained to us to (sometimes tricky) problems and work out a solution.
>
> We were sometimes given the opportunity of having "open book" tests.
> We often feared these because they tended to be more difficult than
> "closed book tests." I guarantee you that the ability to reproduce
> what the teacher and or book said "(like a stage player has to learn
> his text)" would have counted for about nothing as far as passing
> the class went.
All questions must be answered in SR terms though. Anyway, something must
be wrong that makes students miss the fact SR doesn't work. They for
instance get questions to compute angles using length-contraction etc,
but they fail to notice that Lorentztransformations produce the impossible
mutual length-contraction. It is as if they are fiddling with a knob, but
don't realize the car can't run because it has two motors connected to
the speed peddle working in oposite directions.
>> Really, i have my doubts about the possibility of doing scienc professionally,
>> although that might sound strange. I think it's better off with people who
>> love it for what it is, then with people who are in it to perpetuate their
>> existance and get payed. Anyway, i'm just noticing the current model doesn't
>> work very well, it doesn't mean i have all the right answers.
>
> On the other hand I have watched many physics professors rather
> closely. I am impressed by the way that they do what they do because
> they "love it for what it is." They are physics professors because
> this enables them to do what they love--physics. (I noticed the
> same thing with the professors in the Math department also) I think
> that it would be extremely difficult to become a tenured professor
> of physics (or mathematics, or history etc) unless you had a "love
> for what it is." If it's just the money you are after there are MUCH
> easier ways to attain it.
"Love for what it is" is also a danger: if that turns out to be all wrong,
physics proffesors will
1. Don't want to hear it.
2. Only people who love the status quo will get to be good physics professors.
3. People who see the errors or who are not willing to get their head
in a knot for SR will drop out of classes at some stage.
>>>>>> However, there is no proof of SR coming forth whatsoever, it is
>>>>>> literally and explicitely "assumed correct".
>>>>>
>>>>>There is no possibility of proving *any* theory correct.
>>>>
>>>> It's really sad what science has become.
>>>
>>>It's always been this way.
>>
>> I doubt that seriously. Always is a long time. For instance finding a
>> criminal is basically turning into a science which needs hard proof,
>> while at some stages of history it was enough to point a blaming finger.
>> Modern theoretical physics just hasn't caught up with the demand for
>> proof, even though they should be at the top of things were hard proof
>> is required, they pretend hard proof is never possible. I think they are
>> just lazy and hope to get away with it by making it a philosophical
>> principle. Yeah whatever, i don't care about the stupid philosophical
>> notions of modern science either.
>
> Have you attended any physics conferences or colloquiums? Have you
> seen the way researchers grill each other? If you haven't your
> first impression might be that they hate each other or something.
> However that is how they do science. They try as hard as they can
> to leave no stone unturned. Any assertions are examined, reexamined,
> questioned, pounded etc.
>
> I guarantee that an obscure patent clerk who didn't even have an
> academic appointment (much less tenure) couldn't have cowed the entire
> scientific world into accepting his theories unless those theories
> could pass a grilling scientific scrutiny.
The evidence that it happened is undeniable.
I read here many "heavyweight" scientists oposed SR, but the majority
wins, and the majority are always the "parrots". Perhaps "the parrots" were
very content with something nobody could understand including them, a great
equalizer, and so they could be lazy and not make sense, but still retain
their social status by simply claiming they understood.
--
jos
Patrick Reany
Herman Trivilino wrote:
> "josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote ...
>
> > Instead of standing in front of a class and proclaiming a lot of stuff,
> > asking the students to reproduce it (like a stage player has to learn his
> > text), you could explain *why* things are thought to be like that, or
> > you could present the experimental results, or you could give students
> > materials with which they could do experiments and find things out for
> > themselves.
>
> Ok. So you had a teacher you didn't like. That doesn't make the subject
> he was teaching a farce. You know that.
>
> > Really, i have my doubts about the possibility of doing scienc
> professionally,
> > although that might sound strange. I think it's better off with people
> who
> > love it for what it is, then with people who are in it to perpetuate
> their
> > existance and get payed. Anyway, i'm just noticing the current model
> doesn't
> > work very well, it doesn't mean i have all the right answers.
>
> What you have is a profound misunderstanding of what science is, based
> apparently on a bad experience you had with a teacher. The teacher may
> have been bad, and the teacher may have been good, or vice versa. Or
> neither. Or both.
>
We can't leave it up to the whim of the teacher
to educate students about the true nature of
science. We have to get school boards to
mandate that the nature of science be taught to
students throughout their education. I have found,
over the years, that it is impossible to disabuse
a person of his or her misconceptions of the
nature of science once they have reach adult
age. So, this whole argument with josX is
probably pointless if it's intended to change
his mind. His mind has been closed for a
long time.
Patrick
josX
Start the brainwashing while they are young, good policy if you want
to perpetuate the present situation.
I don't care what science *is*, i care about what it *should* be, that's
'real science'. If the factual science is a travesty of what it should
be (for instance it should proof what it says, within limits of what is
possible), then science has been corrupted. Aparently it has fallen victim
to a couple of lousy philosophers who had no faith in thinking, probably
because they weren't very good at it! You got it backwards: "science
is something that postulates theories which cannot be 'proven', so therefore
science must be something that says things which cannot be proven. You have
no ideal of science, you don't love searching for what is 'true', you
have given up. Too bad for you, don't expect everybody to follow your
example though.
One basic rule of science should be "don't overstep the bounds of what
your experiment proves", and SR oversteps this boundary, making it an
unproved hypotheses. If you could think, you would know what the hypotheses
leads to, and that is a myriad of paradoxes, all of which are enough to
give the hypotheses extremely small chances of turning out right.
You can't just 'postulate' light's speed is constant if you have no
experiment to back it up. SR proves science is not science anymore, it's
a game of braindead philosophers, and people are losing interest in it
more and more for this very reason i guess. And rightly so.
My mind is not closed, when you say theories are not expected to proof
themselves, what is your rationale for this ?
I say it's the very nature of science to demand physical evidence, makes
sense doesn't it. Fuckheads.
--
jos
Herman Trivilino
> > I take it you have never had a physics class on the level of the Marion
> > and Thornton's book. I have. The homework was NEVER "asking the
> > students to reproduce it (like a stage player has to learn his text)"
>
> I have.
Did you pass?
> All questions must be answered in SR terms though. Anyway, something must
> be wrong that makes students miss the fact SR doesn't work. They for
> instance get questions to compute angles using length-contraction etc,
> but they fail to notice that Lorentztransformations produce the
impossible
> mutual length-contraction. It is as if they are fiddling with a knob, but
> don't realize the car can't run because it has two motors connected to
> the speed peddle working in oposite directions.
You never understood relativity. I guess that's why you dodged my request
that you post an example of a solution to a relativity problem.
Please show us what you mean, by example, when you talk about the two
motors working in opposite directions.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote ...
>>> I take it you have never had a physics class on the level of the Marion
>>> and Thornton's book. I have. The homework was NEVER "asking the
>>> students to reproduce it (like a stage player has to learn his text)"
>>
>> I have.
>
>Did you pass?
No, i quit the study after 6 month.
>> All questions must be answered in SR terms though. Anyway, something must
>> be wrong that makes students miss the fact SR doesn't work. They for
>> instance get questions to compute angles using length-contraction etc,
>> but they fail to notice that Lorentztransformations produce the impossible
>> mutual length-contraction. It is as if they are fiddling with a knob, but
>> don't realize the car can't run because it has two motors connected to
>> the speed peddle working in oposite directions.
>
>You never understood relativity.
There is practically nothing there as the base theory to understand.
'light's speed is a constant', and there it already fails horribly.
I took the time to investigate the Lorentztransformations, and even
read Einsteins very own book (still getting his essays) (among others).
> I guess that's why you dodged my request
>that you post an example of a solution to a relativity problem.
No need to dodge, the answer is simple: SR is irrational: "here
professor, get your own theory straight before quizing me again"
is what the rational student must find himself answering on an exam
i guess :).
>Please show us what you mean, by example, when you talk about the two
>motors working in opposite directions.
The Lorentztransformations, both claiming the other is
length-contracted and time-dilated, producing conflicting views
on reality. And we aren't talking about visual illusions here,
we are talking about positions of objects in space, time-ticks
of actual clocks (rate at which phenomanon occur). If it were all
visual illusions, then time would increase speed if one would come
together for instance, and things would not hold for an entire
coordinate-system, but only for specific objects.
--
jos
Herman Trivilino
> No, i quit the study after 6 month.
Why? Were you failing your exams?
> >You never understood relativity.
>
> There is practically nothing there as the base theory to understand.
> 'light's speed is a constant', and there it already fails horribly.
Not true. It's actually full of intellectual pitfalls. One of the hardest
things to understand. You gave up before you got started.
> I took the time to investigate the Lorentztransformations, and even
> read Einsteins very own book (still getting his essays) (among others).
Those are two very bad ways to introduce relativity to a student. You had
a bad experience and so you blame the subject matter itself. It's a common
reaction. Also, a very juvenile reaction.
If interested, you could try again, using a different approach. You don't
seem to the type, though, who's willing to put forth the labor.
> > I guess that's why you dodged my
request
> >that you post an example of a solution to a relativity problem.
>
> No need to dodge, the answer is simple: SR is irrational: "here
> professor, get your own theory straight before quizing me again"
> is what the rational student must find himself answering on an exam
> i guess :).
But, you are dodging. Post a chapter-end problem, along with a solution,
and a critique of the solution. In this way you can exemplify your
complaints about relativity, show us whether or not you really understand
that which you criticize, and open the door to a more meaningful
discussion.
> >Please show us what you mean, by example, when you talk about the two
> >motors working in opposite directions.
>
> The Lorentztransformations, both claiming the other is
> length-contracted and time-dilated, producing conflicting views
> on reality.
Give us an example. And then perhaps we can convince you that it is
possible for each observer to see that the other's lengths have contracted
and clocks have slowed. The key to understanding this apparent paradox
lies in an understanding that simultaneity is not absolute.
> And we aren't talking about visual illusions here,
> we are talking about positions of objects in space, time-ticks
> of actual clocks (rate at which phenomanon occur). If it were all
> visual illusions, then time would increase speed if one would come
> together for instance, and things would not hold for an entire
> coordinate-system, but only for specific objects.
It's not illusion. It's real, and has been shown to be so by the passing
of every test ever taken. Relativity is one of the best-supported theories
in all of science.
Michael J. Strickland
Marco Nelissen <mar...@xs3.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:aj0un0$qd3$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
> > How can you go from "the speed of light is a constant for
all observers"
> > (SR) to predicting planetary orbits. How I can see what it
can mean
> > for GPS, and that is that according to SR. What does it have
to do
> > with particle accelerators or nuclear weapons.
>
> The simple fact that you ask these questions shows how deep
> your ignorance really is.
The simple fact that you don't answer the question shows your
ingnorance.
Special Relativity (SR) is not required for any of the
technological developments you cited.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland Germantown, Maryland
micha...@att.net
----------------------------------------------------------------
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote ...
>> No, i quit the study after 6 month.
>
>Why? Were you failing your exams?
[OT]
Mostly yes, because of the math. You may find it hard to belief, but on
my "highschool" we had a fraud women for a math teacher for 5 years, who
(no kidding) asked us at her first class if we wanted to do *stage play*
or *math* ! ;-), me and one other guy demanded we be given math. Amazing.
Then i got to go from this low-grade school (which was actually too simple
for me) to the high-grade school and needed to pass the gap + the final
exam in one year, which i did. But you can understand this is no great
basis for doing math.
>> >You never understood relativity.
>>
>> There is practically nothing there as the base theory to understand.
>> 'light's speed is a constant', and there it already fails horribly.
>
>Not true. It's actually full of intellectual pitfalls. One of the hardest
>things to understand. You gave up before you got started.
No, you fell into the first pitfall, and that is constancy of lightspeed
produces many paradoxes which are not answered. You never came out of
that pitfall because you accepted the lightconstancy without critisism.
>> I took the time to investigate the Lorentztransformations, and even
>> read Einsteins very own book (still getting his essays) (among others).
>
>Those are two very bad ways to introduce relativity to a student. You had
>a bad experience and so you blame the subject matter itself. It's a common
>reaction. Also, a very juvenile reaction.
I make sense, SRists don't, that's all i need to know.
>If interested, you could try again, using a different approach. You don't
>seem to the type, though, who's willing to put forth the labor.
What approach would that be?
>> > I guess that's why you dodged my request
>> >that you post an example of a solution to a relativity problem.
>>
>> No need to dodge, the answer is simple: SR is irrational: "here
>> professor, get your own theory straight before quizing me again"
>> is what the rational student must find himself answering on an exam
>> i guess :).
>
>But, you are dodging. Post a chapter-end problem, along with a solution,
>and a critique of the solution. In this way you can exemplify your
>complaints about relativity, show us whether or not you really understand
>that which you criticize, and open the door to a more meaningful
>discussion.
No, you "scientists" need to get off your "high horse" and talk straight.
You hide behind your papers and presumed competence, but you don't make
an ounce of sense. I don't cut slack, and lots of it, for the esthablished
scientists, and that's why they never come back to reasonable thought after
diving into modern science.
>> >Please show us what you mean, by example, when you talk about the two
>> >motors working in opposite directions.
>>
>> The Lorentztransformations, both claiming the other is
>> length-contracted and time-dilated, producing conflicting views
>> on reality.
>
>Give us an example. And then perhaps we can convince you that it is
>possible for each observer to see that the other's lengths have contracted
>and clocks have slowed. The key to understanding this apparent paradox
>lies in an understanding that simultaneity is not absolute.
"possible" is not good enough, it needs to be *proven* this has to be
the case. In any case, the babble of the SRists always amounts to a verbal
argument that is so diffuse and fuzzy, most people simply give up.
Why would you be any different.
But if you insist, you can still respond to these paradoxes:
- gap in road (does or doesn't the car fall through the gap)
- simultaneity engine failure (does or doesn't the trains engine fail
because of simultaneous lightning strike)
Which lead to the question: do you subscribe to the multiple worlds solution
for SR.
I'd also like to know someone's comment on that you need universe renewal
after acceleration, because after acceleration, all the light in the
universe traveling to earth (and all other light too ofcourse) must adjust
it's speed to the new observer-speed. This means all light in our universe
dances back and forth with the orbit of the Earth around the Sun.
Too bad eh? that you never really thought about the implication of constancy
of speed of light, right?.
>> And we aren't talking about visual illusions here,
>> we are talking about positions of objects in space, time-ticks
>> of actual clocks (rate at which phenomanon occur). If it were all
>> visual illusions, then time would increase speed if one would come
>> together for instance, and things would not hold for an entire
>> coordinate-system, but only for specific objects.
>
>It's not illusion. It's real, and has been shown to be so by the passing
>of every test ever taken. Relativity is one of the best-supported theories
>in all of science.
Could also give one the idea "that's too good to be true, maybe there was
some help along the way".
--
jos
Franz Heymann
> Herman Trivilino wrote:
> >Did you pass?
>
> No, i quit the study after 6 month.
So why do you then consider yourself qualified to pollute this ng?
[snip]
> >You never understood relativity.
>
> There is practically nothing there as the base theory to understand.
> 'light's speed is a constant', and there it already fails horribly.
> I took the time to investigate the Lorentztransformations, and even
> read Einsteins very own book (still getting his essays) (among
others).
If you dropped out after 6 months you don't have a cat in hell's chance
of understanding Einstein's writings. That you are in fact in this
position is a clear observation from your writings.
>
> > I guess that's why you dodged my
request
> >that you post an example of a solution to a relativity problem.
>
> No need to dodge, the answer is simple: SR is irrational: "here
> professor, get your own theory straight before quizing me again"
> is what the rational student must find himself answering on an exam
> i guess :).
>
> >Please show us what you mean, by example, when you talk about the two
> >motors working in opposite directions.
>
> The Lorentztransformations, both claiming the other is
> length-contracted and time-dilated, producing conflicting views
> on reality. And we aren't talking about visual illusions here,
> we are talking about positions of objects in space, time-ticks
> of actual clocks (rate at which phenomanon occur). If it were all
> visual illusions, then time would increase speed if one would come
> together for instance, and things would not hold for an entire
> coordinate-system, but only for specific objects.
Indeed, relativity is concerned with reality. It provides real answers
to real problems. Nobody has yet performed a measurement which is at
variance with a prediction made by using SR.
Franz Heymann
Herman Trivilino
> No, you fell into the first pitfall, and that is constancy of lightspeed
> produces many paradoxes which are not answered. You never came out of
> that pitfall because you accepted the lightconstancy without critisism.
Not true. I accepted it only after it passed criticism. You have
attempted only one course in the subject, and were unable to pass it. You
have a choice, either you haven't studied it sufficiently to comprehend it,
or every one else has been duped. You've chosen the latter, with nothing
to support the validity of that choice.
> I make sense, SRists don't, that's all i need to know.
You may make sense to yourself, but the rest of the world around you
disagrees.
> >If interested, you could try again, using a different approach. You
don't
> >seem to the type, though, who's willing to put forth the labor.
>
> What approach would that be?
There are many, but you're not interested. Remember, you've told us that
SR doesn't make sense, and that's all you need to know. Plus, it would be
too much effort for you. You're not up to it.
Marco Nelissen
> Special Relativity (SR) is not required for any of the
> technological developments you cited.
Does time dilation not follow from special relativity? Does GPS not
need to correct for this?
Tris
<snip>
> Start the brainwashing while they are young, good policy if you want
> to perpetuate the present situation.
>
> I don't care what science *is*, i care about what it *should* be, that's
> 'real science'. If the factual science is a travesty of what it should
> be (for instance it should proof what it says, within limits of what is
> possible),
That's exactly why there can be no absolute proof. Theories are unprovable
and at best falsifiable.
Google "Karl Popper", 42,600 hits.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Karl+Popper%22
> then science has been corrupted. Aparently it has fallen victim
> to a couple of lousy philosophers who had no faith in thinking, probably
> because they weren't very good at it! You got it backwards: "science
> is something that postulates theories which cannot be 'proven', so
therefore
> science must be something that says things which cannot be proven.
How can one prove there is something called distance or mass? That's the
realm of philosophy. Scientists take it for granted that there is something
called distance and something called mass, and construct theories based on
those postulates.
> You have
> no ideal of science, you don't love searching for what is 'true', you
> have given up. Too bad for you, don't expect everybody to follow your
> example though.
Unfortunately for you it seems most people do follow this example.
> One basic rule of science should be "don't overstep the bounds of what
> your experiment proves", and SR oversteps this boundary, making it an
> unproved hypotheses.
Where does it do this? I recall it being explicitly stated that it
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:aj2uqp$4gi$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
><snip>
>> Start the brainwashing while they are young, good policy if you want
>> to perpetuate the present situation.
>>
>> I don't care what science *is*, i care about what it *should* be, that's
>> 'real science'. If the factual science is a travesty of what it should
>> be (for instance it should proof what it says, within limits of what is
>> possible),
>
>That's exactly why there can be no absolute proof. Theories are unprovable
>and at best falsifiable.
That's what SRists whish isn't it, 'cause it would mean their brainfart
coudn't be disproven.
>Google "Karl Popper", 42,600 hits.
>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Karl+Popper%22
Google "Pope", 2,330,000 hits
http://www.google.nl/search?q=Pope&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=nl&btnG=Google+zoeken&lr=
>> then science has been corrupted. Aparently it has fallen victim to a
>> couple of lousy philosophers who had no faith in thinking, probably
>> because they weren't very good at it! You got it backwards: "science
>> is something that postulates theories which cannot be 'proven', so
>> therefore science must be something that says things which cannot
>> be proven.
>
>How can one prove there is something called distance or mass?
Pay me a visit, i have a nice hammer with which i can hit you from
a distance. If you feel nothing then you've proven your point. :-)
> That's the
>realm of philosophy.
it's not
> Scientists take it for granted that there is something
>called distance and something called mass, and construct theories based on
>those postulates.
Sigh. "postulates". The world itself is a postulate too?
The law of inertia is based on the world, on observations, not on "postulates",
same for all true science.
>> You have
>> no ideal of science, you don't love searching for what is 'true', you
>> have given up. Too bad for you, don't expect everybody to follow your
>> example though.
>
>Unfortunately for you it seems most people do follow this example.
Most people followed the Pope at one moment in history. But it's sad
in either case yes.
>> One basic rule of science should be "don't overstep the bounds of what
>> your experiment proves", and SR oversteps this boundary, making it an
>> unproved hypotheses.
>
>Where does it do this? I recall it being explicitly stated that it
Where was the experiment done on one beam of light, and it was shown
that it had speed 'c' for stationary equipment and 'c' for moving
equipment.
jmfb...@aol.com
In article <aj81ds$b6r$1...@news1.xs4all.nl>,
jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>In article <1029145445.5214.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Tris
wrote:
<snip>
>>That's exactly why there can be no absolute proof.
>>Theories are unprovable
>>and at best falsifiable.
>
>That's what SRists whish isn't it, 'cause it would mean their brainfart
>coudn't be disproven.
<snip more attempts to teach about trial and error>
Symptom: I have a light which worked yesterday when I
flipped the light switch; today, when I flipped it, the
light didn't go on.
Diagnosis: There must be something wrong with the science of
physics.
Cure: Please fill in this blank.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Dirk Bruere
<jmfb...@aol.com> wrote in message news:aj84nc$lp2$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...
That's how to tell if ones debunking of Einstein has been effective.
If it has, physics stops.
Dirk
Henri Wilson
Crap Heymann.
For instance the MMX demonstrates that light speed is source dependent.
Pound-Rebka shows that light has mass.
If atmospheric muons didn't travel faster than light, they wouldn't reach
the Earth's surface.
Keep your head in there, Heymann.
>
>Franz Heymann
>
>
and...@attglobal.net
>
> In article <1029145445.5214.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Tris wrote:
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> >news:aj2uqp$4gi$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> ><snip>
> >> Start the brainwashing while they are young, good policy if you want
> >> to perpetuate the present situation.
> >>
> >> I don't care what science *is*, i care about what it *should* be, that's
> >> 'real science'. If the factual science is a travesty of what it should
> >> be (for instance it should proof what it says, within limits of what is
> >> possible),
> >
> >That's exactly why there can be no absolute proof. Theories are unprovable
> >and at best falsifiable.
>
> That's what SRists whish isn't it, 'cause it would mean their brainfart
> coudn't be disproven.
>
You changed the subject of the thread to ignore the fact that
you were claiming that theories can be proven.
"SRists" know that the theory can be falsified by experiment which means
it CAN be proven false. The point of thread, up till the point
where you changed it, is that no theory can be provent true.
SR hasn't been falsified by experiment though.
John Anderson
David Canzi
josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>... K' is a coordinate system in movement with respect to K in the
>direction of Ks positive x axis with a speed of 1 unit distance per 1
>unit time:
>
>t=0
>K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
>K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
>
>t=1
>K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
> K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
[snip]
>Now an object goes to the right at the same speed in both frames:
>t=0
>K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
> *
>K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
> *
>
>t=1
>K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
> *--------^
> K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
> *--------^
So, if we let U be our unit of distance and u the unit of time, the
speed of the K' coordinate system relative to K is v = U/u. The
"object", presumably a flash of light, is moving at c = 3 U/u.
This is the Lorentz transformation for x and t:
x' = (x - vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t' = (t - vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Substituting v = c/3 and simplifying we get:
x' = (x - ct/3)/sqrt(8/9)
t' = (t - x/3c)/sqrt(8/9)
For a flash of light leaving the origin of coordinates, x = ct.
Substituting this into the above equations we get:
x' = (ct - ct/3)/sqrt(8/9)
t' = (t - ct/3c)/sqrt(8/9)
Simplifying we get:
x' = (2ct/3)/sqrt(8/9)
t' = (2t/3)/sqrt(8/9)
It's obvious from these equations that x' = ct' -- the speed of light
remains the same in both coordinate systems.
It's pretty easy math. Why couldn't you get it right? Because you
didn't actually *do* any math. You drew pictures, and your pictures
left out something essential from the real Lorentz transformation. If,
instead of drawing pictures, you had applied the equations, you would
have had a better chance of getting it right.
If you don't apply the equations, you'll miss something important. If
you don't know how to apply the equations, you're playing in the wrong
sandbox.
--
David Canzi If money is the root of all evil, marketing
must be the trunk and most of the branches.
Tris
> In article <1029145445.5214.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Tris
wrote:
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> >news:aj2uqp$4gi$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> ><snip>
> >> Start the brainwashing while they are young, good policy if you want
> >> to perpetuate the present situation.
> >>
> >> I don't care what science *is*, i care about what it *should* be,
that's
> >> 'real science'. If the factual science is a travesty of what it should
> >> be (for instance it should proof what it says, within limits of what is
> >> possible),
> >
> >That's exactly why there can be no absolute proof. Theories are
unprovable
> >and at best falsifiable.
>
> That's what SRists whish isn't it, 'cause it would mean their brainfart
> coudn't be disproven.
All contemporary science theories should be falsifiable. This means they
can be proved wrong by _one_ counterexample. What is the problem?
SR _hasn't_ been falsified in nearly a century of hundreds of experiments.
It _is_ falsifiable. It may very well be built on false postulates but it
works! Do you have an alternative theory, with different postulates, that
will do just as well?
> >Google "Karl Popper", 42,600 hits.
> >http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Karl+Popper%22
>
> Google "Pope", 2,330,000 hits
>
http://www.google.nl/search?q=Pope&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=nl&btnG=Google+zoeken&lr
=
Karl Popper's philosophy of science is well worth reading in order to
understand what falsifiability means.
> >> then science has been corrupted. Aparently it has fallen victim to a
> >> couple of lousy philosophers who had no faith in thinking, probably
> >> because they weren't very good at it! You got it backwards: "science
> >> is something that postulates theories which cannot be 'proven', so
> >> therefore science must be something that says things which cannot
> >> be proven.
> >
> >How can one prove there is something called distance or mass?
>
> Pay me a visit, i have a nice hammer with which i can hit you from
> a distance. If you feel nothing then you've proven your point. :-)
My point is that there are postulates for every theory, whether explicitly
stated or not. We accept that a property of matter is mass, for example.
Do you require every theory to _prove_ mass exists? Or would it be better
to have that as a given?
"Tests of Einstein's two postulates"
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#3.%20Te
sts%20of%20Einstein's%20two%20postulates
Pmb
> So, this is exactly how physics students are introduced to
> relativity theory. These students will then have to pass
> exams reproducing relativity later, in order to get their
> first-year graduation. Failing such graduations means obvious
> removal from university. However, there is no proof of SR
> coming forth whatsoever, it is literally and explicitely
> "assumed correct".
Yes. That is quite true to a certain extent. These are the axioms of
Special Relativity. And axiom (i.e. law. postulate etc) is that which
is assumed to br true without proof. However there is a experimental
evidence which backs it up. But this is true with any science.
Pmb
grelbr
[snip]
> SR _hasn't_ been falsified in nearly a century of hundreds of experiments.
> It _is_ falsifiable. It may very well be built on false postulates but it
> works! Do you have an alternative theory, with different postulates, that
> will do just as well?
No no. SR *has* been falsified. It was replaced with general relativity,
which also brought us the limits of applicability of SR. Namely, when
the curvature of space-time is small enough that it can be ignored.
In fact, there is a nifty example of when this is true in one of the
early chapters of _Gravitation_ by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler.
GR contains SR as the flat-space-time limit.
It is GR that has not been falsified as yet. Though we are having a
great time chasing it.
grelbr
Herman Trivilino
> > SR _hasn't_ been falsified in nearly a century of hundreds of
experiments.
> > It _is_ falsifiable. It may very well be built on false postulates but
it
> > works! Do you have an alternative theory, with different postulates,
that
> > will do just as well?
>
> No no. SR *has* been falsified. It was replaced with general relativity,
> which also brought us the limits of applicability of SR.
Not quite true. The limits of validity were known at the time SR appeared.
Within those limits, the theory has not been falsified. Indeed, since no
theory has universal limits of validity, your argument could be used to
claim that EVERY theory has been falsified.
The following quote may be of interest, taken from "Gravitation and
Spacetime", 2nd edition, by Hans C. Ohanian and Remo Ruffini, published by
W.W. Norton & Company, 1994. On page 371 the authors are discussing
Einstein's GENERAL Theory of Relativity, that is, Einstein's generalization
of Special Relativity ...
" ... In his original work, Einstein sought to justify general
invariance by appeal to a general principle of equivalence for reference
frames in arbitrary (accelerated) motion. This was intended to be a
generalization of the principle of special relativity, which asserts the
equivalence of reference frames in uniform motion. Thus, Einstein's theory
was intended to be a theory of "general relativity." But in fact, the
theory of special relativity is already as relativistic as it can be -- it
has the maximum amount of spacetime symmetry. The principle of general
invariance is not a relativity principle; rather, the principle of general
invariance is a dynamical principle that imposes restrictions on the
possible interactions of geometry and matter.
...
Since Einstein's theory of 'general relativity' is no more relativistic
than special relativity, it would be preferable to adopt the name
*geometro-dynamics* for this theory. This name, coined by Wheeler, puts
the emphasis where it belongs -- on the dynamical geometry that acts on and
reacts to matter."
Robert J. Kolker
grelbr wrote:
>>
>
> No no. SR *has* been falsified. It was replaced with general relativity,
SR was never intended to account for gravity.
Bob Kolker
Nicolaas Vroom
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> schreef in bericht
news:aj12i8$479$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> Instead of standing in front of a class and proclaiming a lot of stuff,
> asking the students to reproduce it (like a stage player has to learn his
> text), you could explain *why* things are thought to be like that
*Why* questions are the most difficult things to answer.
We can describe the physical reality ie its physical behaviour,
and predict if for example you change one parameter how its
physical behaviour will change.
But that does not answer the why question.
>, or you could present the experimental results,
To perform experiments which demonstrate SR is very difficult.
Did you ever see the Michelson-Morley Experiment ?
Is it possible to observe that experiment anywhere in the Netherlands ?
Experimental results are discussed in the book:
"Was Einstein Right" by Clifford M.Will
Length Contraction is not discussed in that book.
> or you could give students materials with which they could
> do experiments and find things out for themselves.
Again this is very difficult.
(You can only (?) perform the experiment with two slits
and single photons in Delft)
Did you ever discuss your objections and remarks with
your physics professors ?
Did you ever discuss this with your fellow students ?
I greatly appreciate the book:
Introducing Einstein's Relativity by Ray d'Inverno
At page 23 of that book a moving train experiment is discussed.
What makes that experiment so difficult is that part of that
experiment length contraction is involved.
In fact, in oder to observe the moving train simultaneous by
observer A at rest,
you need, with each speed v of the moving train
a different rest length of the train.
If you do not take length contraction in account
and if the rest length of the train is the same as
the distance between the two firIng devices than at
the speed v, A will not see the lights simultaneous.
The question is than will B see (who is at the middle
of the moving train) the two signals simultaneous ?
The best way of course is to perform this experiment
in real.
It would be interesting to know what is feasible.
Nick,
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom
Dirk Van de moortel
"Nicolaas Vroom" <nicolaa...@pandora.be> wrote in message news:57879.68923$8o4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...[snip]
>
> Did you ever discuss your objections and remarks with
> your physics professors ?
Of course he did. He called them idiots.
That's when they kicked him out.
> Did you ever discuss this with your fellow students ?
Of course he did. He called them idiots.
That's when they started ignoring him.
Dirk Vdm
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> schreef in bericht
>news:aj12i8$479$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>
>> Instead of standing in front of a class and proclaiming a lot of stuff,
>> asking the students to reproduce it (like a stage player has to learn his
>> text), you could explain *why* things are thought to be like that
>
>*Why* questions are the most difficult things to answer.
Not the form of "why" do we believe these things are true.
For instance it would be admirable if universities would tell students
they belief in SR because it keeps certain equations in the same form
at the cost of just about everything rational. It would be a nice little
touch to education to tell people why you tell them what you tell them.
Even more nice would be to tell that we really have no option anymore
with regard to SR, because if we removed it there would be coming down
so much with it. And i don't mean science, i mean reputations, books,
prizes, etc etc.
>We can describe the physical reality ie its physical behaviour,
>and predict if for example you change one parameter how its
>physical behaviour will change.
>But that does not answer the why question.
>
>>, or you could present the experimental results,
>
>To perform experiments which demonstrate SR is very difficult.
Ofcourse, it's not a true theory so you would need to hire an excellent
magician.
>Did you ever see the Michelson-Morley Experiment ?
nope
>Is it possible to observe that experiment anywhere in the Netherlands ?
theoretically yes, i think we are big enough for that :)
>Experimental results are discussed in the book:
>"Was Einstein Right" by Clifford M.Will
>Length Contraction is not discussed in that book.
>
>> or you could give students materials with which they could
>> do experiments and find things out for themselves.
>
>Again this is very difficult.
>(You can only (?) perform the experiment with two slits
>and single photons in Delft)
>
>Did you ever discuss your objections and remarks with
>your physics professors ?
No, when i was in university i wasn't so hot against SR yet. I still
assumed it was a very difficult theory i couldn't understand for some
mysterious reason (actually i found out i couldn't explain it to anyone
either).
>Did you ever discuss this with your fellow students ?
No. And i can't take people at universities serious anymore, and i fear
they will only listen with in the back of their minds "how can i get
better off this, how can i make this work for me" etc.
>I greatly appreciate the book:
>Introducing Einstein's Relativity by Ray d'Inverno
>At page 23 of that book a moving train experiment is discussed.
>What makes that experiment so difficult is that part of that
>experiment length contraction is involved.
I bet what makes it difficult is the amount of obfuscations needed to
cloud readers into thinking this is something really advanced, high
tech, brilliant physics. While it's a bottom of the barrel scam.
>In fact, in oder to observe the moving train simultaneous by
>observer A at rest,
>you need, with each speed v of the moving train
>a different rest length of the train.
>
>If you do not take length contraction in account
>and if the rest length of the train is the same as
>the distance between the two firIng devices than at
>the speed v, A will not see the lights simultaneous.
>
>The question is than will B see (who is at the middle
>of the moving train) the two signals simultaneous ?
>
>The best way of course is to perform this experiment
>in real.
>It would be interesting to know what is feasible.
Experiments are always good, as long as they are done by trusted people.
--
jos
Randy Poe
>
> In article <57879.68923$8o4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> schreef in bericht
> >news:aj12i8$479$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >
> >> Instead of standing in front of a class and proclaiming a lot of stuff,
> >> asking the students to reproduce it (like a stage player has to learn his
> >> text), you could explain *why* things are thought to be like that
> >
> >*Why* questions are the most difficult things to answer.
>
> Not the form of "why" do we believe these things are true.
> For instance it would be admirable if universities would tell students
> they belief in SR because it keeps certain equations in the same form
> at the cost of just about everything rational.
We tell them why Einstein thought the starting postulate was
reasonable, that Maxwell's equations should be invariant
and that otherwise the prediction of a standing static
electromagnetic field (if you were able to ride along
an EM wave) is absurd.
We show them that this starting invariance leads to
seemingly bizarre conclusions about the flexible nature of
space and time. Every step of the way is laid out.
We tell them what sort of bizarre predictions about
experimental results these conclusions lead us to, in
contrast to the "reasonable" predictions of Newton.
And then we all see that the observations are consistent
with SR and GR and inconsistent with Newton. Alas.
Nobody teaches this: "they belief in SR because it keeps
certain equations in the same form" because it isn't
true. There is one and only one test: What does the theory
predict your experiment will show? "Correct" means agrees
with experiment, "incorrect" means does not.
A theory which is intuitively nice and inconsistent with
experiment is called "incorrect".
A theory which is intuitively unsatisfying to someone such
as yourself but gives correct predictions is called
"correct". Because Mother Nature, and not JosX, is the
judge.
> Experiments are always good, as long as they are done by trusted people.
Yes, the last refuge. "They're lying. All of them. For the
last 100 years."
- Randy
Nicolaas Vroom
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> schreef
in bericht news:ajjdde$i6v$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> In article <57879.68923$8o4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>,
> Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> schreef in bericht
> >news:aj12i8$479$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >
> >> Instead of standing in front of a class and proclaiming a lot of stuff,
> >> asking the students to reproduce it (like a stage player has to learn
his
> >> text), you could explain *why* things are thought to be like that
> >
> >*Why* questions are the most difficult things to answer.
>
> Not the form of "why" do we believe these things are true.
> For instance it would be admirable if universities would tell students
> they belief in SR because it keeps certain equations in the same form
> at the cost of just about everything rational. It would be a nice little
> touch to education to tell people why you tell them what you tell them.
> Even more nice would be to tell that we really have no option anymore
> with regard to SR, because if we removed it there would be coming down
> so much with it.
but no one has the guts/courage to admit this.
This smells like a complot theory.
> And i don't mean science, i mean reputations, books,
> prizes, etc etc.
>
> >We can describe the physical reality ie its physical behaviour,
> >and predict if for example you change one parameter how its
> >physical behaviour will change.
> >But that does not answer the why question.
> >
> >>, or you could present the experimental results,
> >
> >To perform experiments which demonstrate SR is very difficult.
>
> Ofcourse, it's not a true theory
So what is SR then ?
(How do you categorize GR ?)
> so you would need to hire an excellent magician.
>
> >Did you ever see the Michelson-Morley Experiment ?
>
> nope
>
> >Is it possible to observe that experiment anywhere in the Netherlands ?
>
> theoretically yes, i think we are big enough for that :)
I'am not interested in a theoretical reply.
> >Experimental results are discussed in the book:
> >"Was Einstein Right" by Clifford M.Will
> >Length Contraction is not discussed in that book.
> >
> >> or you could give students materials with which they could
> >> do experiments and find things out for themselves.
> >
> >Again this is very difficult.
> >(You can only (?) perform the experiment with two slits
> >and single photons in Delft)
> >
> >Did you ever discuss your objections and remarks with
> >your physics professors ?
>
> No, when i was in university i wasn't so hot against SR yet. I still
> assumed it was a very difficult theory i couldn't understand for some
> mysterious reason (actually i found out i couldn't explain it to anyone
> either).
What is the reason that did you switch from being in favour (?) of SR
to being against SR.
a) because you did and do not understand it ?
b) because you understand it but it is not relevant ?
c) something else ?
> >Did you ever discuss this with your fellow students ?
>
> No. And i can't take people at universities serious anymore,
Why ?
> and i fear
> they will only listen with in the back of their minds "how can i get
> better off this, how can i make this work for me" etc.
Why ? Did some one steal your idea ?
You must have a bad experience.
> >I greatly appreciate the book:
> >Introducing Einstein's Relativity by Ray d'Inverno
> >At page 23 of that book a moving train experiment is discussed.
> >What makes that experiment so difficult is that part of that
> >experiment length contraction is involved.
>
> I bet what makes it difficult is the amount of obfuscations needed to
> cloud readers into thinking this is something really advanced, high
> tech, brilliant physics. While it's a bottom of the barrel scam.
Please go to a library and or try to get a copy of that book
and explain in detail why you have this negative feeling/opinion.
> >In fact, in oder to observe the moving train simultaneous by
> >observer A at rest,
> >you need, with each speed v of the moving train
> >a different rest length of the train.
> >
> >If you do not take length contraction in account
> >and if the rest length of the train is the same as
> >the distance between the two firIng devices than at
> >the speed v, A will not see the lights simultaneous.
> >
> >The question is than will B see (who is at the middle
> >of the moving train) the two signals simultaneous ?
> >
> >The best way of course is to perform this experiment
> >in real.
> >It would be interesting to know what is feasible.
>
> Experiments are always good, as long as they are done
> by trusted people.
Why this last remark ?
Again do you have a bad experience.
My solution: Maybe some introspection will be benificial.
Nick
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom
josX
>josX wrote:
>>
>> In article <57879.68923$8o4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
>> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> schreef in bericht
>> >news:aj12i8$479$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>> >
>> >> Instead of standing in front of a class and proclaiming a lot of stuff,
>> >> asking the students to reproduce it (like a stage player has to learn his
>> >> text), you could explain *why* things are thought to be like that
>> >
>> >*Why* questions are the most difficult things to answer.
>>
>> Not the form of "why" do we believe these things are true.
>> For instance it would be admirable if universities would tell students
>> they belief in SR because it keeps certain equations in the same form
>> at the cost of just about everything rational.
>
>We
We? don't tell me you are a university teacher
> tell them why Einstein thought the starting postulate was
>reasonable, that Maxwell's equations should be invariant
>and that otherwise the prediction of a standing static
>electromagnetic field (if you were able to ride along
>an EM wave) is absurd.
Ah, the famous Einstein babble "i can't imagine light moving
besides me at the same velocity".
Why is a wave absurd if you are moving with it. You have
water-waves maintaining a sort of hilly feature on water if
you move with the waves at the speed of the waves, is that
absurd too then?
>We show them that this starting invariance leads to
>seemingly bizarre conclusions about the flexible nature of
>space and time. Every step of the way is laid out.
And then they buy the bizarre conclusions of bending space,
bending time etc right?
I feel like i have walked into some scary movy where everybody
suddenly has turned into a zomby.
>We tell them what sort of bizarre predictions about
>experimental results these conclusions lead us to, in
>contrast to the "reasonable" predictions of Newton.
>
>And then we all see that the observations are consistent
>with SR and GR and inconsistent with Newton. Alas.
A sort of hip-hop between first Newton, then bizarre things,
then Newton again and ending with Einstein? This going back
and forth fuzzzaps the students brains? Don't worry, i am
familiar with the stupidity of the average citizen firsthand,
i know these things can be done with enough authority behind it.
>Nobody teaches this: "they belief in SR because it keeps
>certain equations in the same form" because it isn't
>true. There is one and only one test: What does the theory
>predict your experiment will show? "Correct" means agrees
>with experiment, "incorrect" means does not.
You forget about the derivation, it should be sensible and correct.
>A theory which is intuitively nice and inconsistent with
>experiment is called "incorrect".
>
>A theory which is intuitively unsatisfying to someone such
>as yourself but gives correct predictions is called
>"correct". Because Mother Nature, and not JosX, is the
>judge.
But Einstein and Hawking supersede rationality, ofcourse. But that's
the small print and you wouldn't like to ruin your post because of it.
>> Experiments are always good, as long as they are done by trusted people.
>
>Yes, the last refuge. "They're lying. All of them. For the
>last 100 years."
It's not a refuge, it's a fact. You will play the side of "this lie is
so big, it can't be true", meanwhile i have hard mathematics to proof
my point. May the best man win.
--
jos
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> schreef
>in bericht news:ajjdde$i6v$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>In article <57879.68923$8o4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>,
>>Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
>>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> schreef in bericht
>>>news:aj12i8$479$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>>
>>>> Instead of standing in front of a class and proclaiming a lot of stuff,
>>>> asking the students to reproduce it (like a stage player has to learn his
>>>> text), you could explain *why* things are thought to be like that
>>>
>>>*Why* questions are the most difficult things to answer.
>>
>>Not the form of "why" do we believe these things are true.
>>For instance it would be admirable if universities would tell students
>>they belief in SR because it keeps certain equations in the same form
>>at the cost of just about everything rational. It would be a nice little
>>touch to education to tell people why you tell them what you tell them.
>>Even more nice would be to tell that we really have no option anymore
>>with regard to SR, because if we removed it there would be coming down
>>so much with it.
>
>It seems to me that you believe that everyone knows SR is nonsense
>but no one has the guts/courage to admit this.
Ofcourse, or do you claim to be utterly retarded. Be my guest.
>This smells like a complot theory.
More like mutual benifit. If you want you can call the church a
complot. Meanwhile it has been running for thousands of years.
>> And i don't mean science, i mean reputations, books,
>> prizes, etc etc.
>>
>> >We can describe the physical reality ie its physical behaviour,
>> >and predict if for example you change one parameter how its
>> >physical behaviour will change.
>> >But that does not answer the why question.
>> >
>> >>, or you could present the experimental results,
>> >
>> >To perform experiments which demonstrate SR is very difficult.
>>
>> Ofcourse, it's not a true theory
>So what is SR then ?
>
>(How do you categorize GR ?)
Why should i comment on GR when we still have no official admission
of the bogusness of SR.
Because i finally realized SR was wrong, and the authority of Einstein
as a great scientists was nothing but a hollow claim to keep his
theories in the air. But it didn't dawn on me just like that, it took
many years.
>> >Did you ever discuss this with your fellow students ?
>>
>> No. And i can't take people at universities serious anymore,
>
>Why ?
Why?
>> and i fear
>> they will only listen with in the back of their minds "how can i get
>> better off this, how can i make this work for me" etc.
>
>Why ? Did some one steal your idea ?
>You must have a bad experience.
They should have figured it out on their own.
>> >I greatly appreciate the book:
>> >Introducing Einstein's Relativity by Ray d'Inverno
>> >At page 23 of that book a moving train experiment is discussed.
>> >What makes that experiment so difficult is that part of that
>> >experiment length contraction is involved.
>>
>> I bet what makes it difficult is the amount of obfuscations needed to
>> cloud readers into thinking this is something really advanced, high
>> tech, brilliant physics. While it's a bottom of the barrel scam.
>
>Please go to a library and or try to get a copy of that book
>and explain in detail why you have this negative feeling/opinion.
I already have Einsteins book, from the man himself. Sorry dude, but that
evasion isn't going to work anymore.
>> >In fact, in oder to observe the moving train simultaneous by
>> >observer A at rest,
>> >you need, with each speed v of the moving train
>> >a different rest length of the train.
>> >
>> >If you do not take length contraction in account
>> >and if the rest length of the train is the same as
>> >the distance between the two firIng devices than at
>> >the speed v, A will not see the lights simultaneous.
>> >
>> >The question is than will B see (who is at the middle
>> >of the moving train) the two signals simultaneous ?
>> >
>> >The best way of course is to perform this experiment
>> >in real.
>> >It would be interesting to know what is feasible.
>>
>> Experiments are always good, as long as they are done
>> by trusted people.
>
>Why this last remark ?
You don't agree with it?
>Again do you have a bad experience.
Yes: modern science.
>My solution: Maybe some introspection will be benificial.
Right, i give you the benifit of the doubt, i be nice to you, and
what do i get? more bullshit. Thanks, that's just what we need. You
disapoint me; another bad experience i guess.
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ajjl15$2r9$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> Randy Poe wrote:
[snip]
> >Yes, the last refuge. "They're lying. All of them. For the
> >last 100 years."
>
> It's not a refuge, it's a fact. You will play the side of "this lie is
> so big, it can't be true", meanwhile i have hard mathematics to proof
> my point.
Hard mathematics?
You mean your baby diagrams?
You can't even properly put the Lorentz transformation
into words:
| "Two coordinate systems K and K'. K' moves with respect to K.
| x is the x coordinate in the K system, x' is the same point as x
| but in the x' coordinate system.
| t is the time in the K system, t' is the time at the same moment in
| the K' system.
| v is the speed of K' with respect to K."
> May the best man win.
He won a long time ago.
You are fighting a lost battle. A very, very lost one indeed.
http://dir.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Vdm
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ajjl15$2r9$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>> Randy Poe wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> >Yes, the last refuge. "They're lying. All of them. For the
>> >last 100 years."
>>
>> It's not a refuge, it's a fact. You will play the side of "this lie is
>> so big, it can't be true", meanwhile i have hard mathematics to proof
>> my point.
>
>Hard mathematics?
No, i mean hard as in 'solid'.
>You mean your baby diagrams?
Baby diagrams and baby numerical calculations is all that it takes.
>You can't even properly put the Lorentz transformation
>into words:
>
> | "Two coordinate systems K and K'. K' moves with respect to K.
> | x is the x coordinate in the K system, x' is the same point as x
> | but in the x' coordinate system.
> | t is the time in the K system, t' is the time at the same moment in
> | the K' system.
> | v is the speed of K' with respect to K."
Nothing wrong with that and you know it.
>> May the best man win.
>
>He won a long time ago.
>You are fighting a lost battle. A very, very lost one indeed.
> http://dir.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html
Well, at least you are losing usenet.
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ajjmq0$5s4$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ajjl15$2r9$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
[snip]
> >You can't even properly put the Lorentz transformation
> >into words:
> >
> > | "Two coordinate systems K and K'. K' moves with respect to K.
> > | x is the x coordinate in the K system, x' is the same point as x
> > | but in the x' coordinate system.
> > | t is the time in the K system, t' is the time at the same moment in
> > | the K' system.
> > | v is the speed of K' with respect to K."
>
> Nothing wrong with that and you know it.
You are funny. Thank you.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#NothingWrong
Now tell me you feel honoured of getting listed among
usenet's brightest.
Dirk Vdm
Randy Poe
>
> Randy Poe wrote:
> >josX wrote:
> >We
>
> We? don't tell me you are a university teacher
No I'm not. I'm telling you the SR pedagogy. I don't actually
teach this stuff, though I've learned it.
>
> > tell them why Einstein thought the starting postulate was
> >reasonable, that Maxwell's equations should be invariant
> >and that otherwise the prediction of a standing static
> >electromagnetic field (if you were able to ride along
> >an EM wave) is absurd.
>
> Ah, the famous Einstein babble "i can't imagine light moving
> besides me at the same velocity".
Whether or not you believe it, that's the starting point that
leads mathematically to SR. Then you get other consequences.
The test is not whether you like the starting point, it's
whether the consequences pan out in Nature. Alas for your
mental satisfaction, they do.
> Why is a wave absurd if you are moving with it. You have
> water-waves maintaining a sort of hilly feature on water if
> you move with the waves at the speed of the waves, is that
> absurd too then?
Because this is an electromagnetic wave. Maxwell says that
a changing electric field gives you a magnetic field and
a changing magnetic field gives you an electric field.
Here you have sourceless fields just sitting there at
every point in space. It's absurd from the point of
view of EM theory.
> >We show them that this starting invariance leads to
> >seemingly bizarre conclusions about the flexible nature of
> >space and time. Every step of the way is laid out.
>
> And then they buy the bizarre conclusions of bending space,
> bending time etc right?
Predictions. Hypothesis->prediction->test->verify or falsify.
Nobody "buys" the bizarre conclusions on faith. The last
part of the puzzle is the crucial one: Does this bizarre stuff
actually happen?
Try to imagine the state of academia circa 1910. Now why
the heck do you think anyone would have listened to this
stuff? Don't you think everyone, lacking experimental evidence,
would have also considered it absurd?
What changed things?
> I feel like i have walked into some scary movy where everybody
> suddenly has turned into a zomby.
That's because you don't believe in experiments or the
scientific method. You have a world view that disagrees
with nature, and you think that hypnosis is the only
way that people can agree with nature over your view of
how nature should be.
> >Yes, the last refuge. "They're lying. All of them. For the
> >last 100 years."
>
> It's not a refuge, it's a fact.
It's your belief system. You don't control my universe.
> You will play the side of "this lie is
> so big, it can't be true", meanwhile i have hard mathematics to proof
> my point.
Even if your mathematics were correct (it is not a correct analysis)
nature trumps mathematics.
The muon experiments have been done by undergraduates. Are
they paid off by the Men in Black before being allowed to
do the experiment?
Are the GPS clock corrections not actually being performed,
but part of the Big Lie is to put up those websites and pretend
such an effect is happening?
What are the Big Liars doing when they construct accelerators
whose dimensions are wrong for relativity?
What Truth is Out There regarding gravitational lensing?
How did the Big Lie with all these bizarre predictions get
started in the first place?
- Randy
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>>
> It's not a refuge, it's a fact. You will play the side of "this lie is
> so big, it can't be true", meanwhile i have hard mathematics to proof
> my point. May the best man win.
No you don't. And you lose. Why? Because every experiment done to date
supports SR. You cannot cite a singled vetted experiment which counter
indicates SR.
Bob Kolker
josX
Are you subscribing to multiple worlds hypotheses in order to make SR
self consistant ?
Otherwise, you are a logical joke. Well, we already know that.
Why aren't you responding to the MATH put forth, can't beat the math eh?
--
jos
josX
Amazing that you use 'absurdity' as an argument to come to
SR's absurdity, i guess that you cannot use the absurd argument
anywhere if you eventually result in an absurd theory.
>> >We show them that this starting invariance leads to
>> >seemingly bizarre conclusions about the flexible nature of
>> >space and time. Every step of the way is laid out.
>>
>> And then they buy the bizarre conclusions of bending space,
>> bending time etc right?
>
>Predictions. Hypothesis->prediction->test->verify or falsify.
>
>Nobody "buys" the bizarre conclusions on faith. The last
>part of the puzzle is the crucial one: Does this bizarre stuff
>actually happen?
With all the babbling you forget the most important thing: hard
physical evidence. You don't have it, so it's back to square one.
>Try to imagine the state of academia circa 1910. Now why
>the heck do you think anyone would have listened to this
>stuff? Don't you think everyone, lacking experimental evidence,
>would have also considered it absurd?
I don't know. Perhaps they really were that stupid, as you claim
to be. Perhaps they really were that corrupt, how should i know.
>What changed things?
>
>> I feel like i have walked into some scary movy where everybody
>> suddenly has turned into a zomby.
>
>That's because you don't believe in experiments
Alright, you can fuck off now. I do believe in experiments, and that's
why i say SR is wrong: because it has no evidence going for it.
> or the
>scientific method. You have a world view that disagrees
>with nature, and you think that hypnosis is the only
>way that people can agree with nature over your view of
>how nature should be.
>
>> >Yes, the last refuge. "They're lying. All of them. For the
>> >last 100 years."
>>
>> It's not a refuge, it's a fact.
>
>It's your belief system. You don't control my universe.
>
>> You will play the side of "this lie is
>> so big, it can't be true", meanwhile i have hard mathematics to proof
>> my point.
>
>Even if your mathematics were correct (it is not a correct analysis)
>nature trumps mathematics.
>
>The muon experiments have been done by undergraduates. Are
>they paid off by the Men in Black before being allowed to
>do the experiment?
What makes you think the muon proves SR is right. It's just a particle
which behaves like this, it doesn't proof timedilation because the
mutual timedilation is an irrational concept. You people continuously
overstep the bounds of your experiments, and when you find some effect
you immediately bark it's proof of your theory. When an atomic clock
is found to run fast on a mountain, you immediately bark it's "time-itself"
which does this, completely ignoring gravitational changes. We can't
take you people serious anymore.
>Are the GPS clock corrections not actually being performed,
>but part of the Big Lie is to put up those websites and pretend
>such an effect is happening?
Doesn't gravity have a different value up there then down here?
>What are the Big Liars doing when they construct accelerators
>whose dimensions are wrong for relativity?
Working with only other people who have run through university, proving
their inability to see through the lie in the first place ?
>What Truth is Out There regarding gravitational lensing?
I don't have a problem with gravitational lensing, what makes you think
i do, besides you're idea that you could score with this question ?
>How did the Big Lie with all these bizarre predictions get
>started in the first place?
Perhaps the same way you were indoctrinated into it, and then finally
you either took it as a fundamentalist faith, or you were smart enough
to realize you had become a scam and it was in your best interest to
maintain the facade ?
Besides all that, i don't really care. I know you are wrong, but how
it happened or why, who cares. Irrational faith is nothing new in
human history. Your faith group is still far far far less big then
for instance most church types (people who actually know SR and belief
in it).
*
Investigation into length contraction and time dilation, K is a coordinate
system, K' is a coordinate system in movement with respect to K in the
direction of Ks positive x axis with a speed of 1 unit distance per 1
unit time:
t=0
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
t=1
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
t=2
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
Now an object goes to the right at the same speed in both frames:
t=0
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*
t=1
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*--------^
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*--------^
t=2
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*-----------------^
K'0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*-----------------^
To make this incoherency mathematically (seemingly) right, you might do
this, contract the length-measure in K', the famous length contraction
i presume:
t=0
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
*
t=1
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*--------^
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
*-----^
t=2
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*-----------------^
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
*-----------^
Speeds are the same numerically in both coordinate systems: 3 ticks
per time.
That's one solution, but it doesn't work:
t=0
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
*
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
*
t=1
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
^--------*
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
^-----------*
t=2
K 0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-
^-----------------*
K'0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-1011121314151617181920
^-----------------------*
Which is 3 ticks in K per time, but (15-3=12)/2=6 ticks per time in K'.
Therefore length-contraction doesn't work and will never work to make
c a constant in all frames of reference, because it produces the oposite
results depending on whether the direction of the light was along or
head-on with the translation of the moving coordinate system. Like
time dilation, it is also in contradiction with the principle of relativity,
because you can't take one of the coordinate systems to be the preferred
frame, which produces the impossible *mutual* length-contraction, producing
paradoxes like the car which does or doesn't fall through a hole in the
road depending on your frame of reference.
Then there is time-dilation (well there isn't, but there is the hypotheses):
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=0
||
||
||
||
2|
||
|1
||
||
1|
||
||
||
|| distance>
0*--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=1
||
||
||
||
2|
||
|1
||
||
1|--======v
||
||
||
|| distance>
0*--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=2
||
||
||
||
2|-----============v
||
|1
||
||
1|
||
||
||
|| distance>
0*--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
For K 6 distance for 2 time = 3 distance ticks for 1 time tick.
For K' 4 distance for 1 3/9 time tick = 3 distance ticks for 1 time tick.
So this works out, so it SEEMS.
But it doesn't because:
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=0
||
||
||
||
2|
||
|1
||
||
1|
||
||
||
|| distance>
00 *
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=1
||
||
||
||
2|
||
|1
||
||
1| v=========---
||
||
||
|| distance>
00--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|2 time dilation
3| t=2
||
||
||
||
2| v==================------
||
|1
||
||
1|
||
||
||
|| distance>
0*--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K'
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-K
K -> (10-4=6) distance / 2 time = 3 distance per 1 time
K' -> (10-2=8) distance / 1 3/9 time = 6 distance per 1 time
3 <> 6
So time dilation produces oposite results for beams in the oposite
direction of the translation of the moving coordinate system, and
can therefore not make the speed of light a constant generally accross
reference frames which are moving with respect to one another.
A combination of the above two solutions to constancy of c (timedilation
lengthcontraction) will not work for the same reason that they don't work
in isolation either:
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=0
|2
||
2|
||
||
|1
1|
||
||
|| distance>
0*----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10---11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15--16--17--
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=1
|2
||
2|
||
||
|1
1|----==========v
||
||
|| distance>
00----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10---11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15--16-
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=2
|2
||
2|---------====================v
||
||
|1
1|
||
||
|| distance>
00----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10---11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15
K -> 6 distance for 2 time = 3 distance for 1 time
K' -> 5 distance for 1 4/6 time = 3 distance for 1 time
So far so good, but:
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=0
|2
||
2|
||
||
|1
1|
||
||
|| distance>
00 *
0----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10---11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15--16--17--
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=1
|2
||
2|
||
||
|1
1| v===============-----
||
||
|| distance>
00----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10--11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15--16
KK'
vv
|| ^time
|| time dilation and
3| length contraction
|| t=2
|2
||
2| v==============================----------
||
||
|1
1|
||
||
|| distance>
00----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10---11---12---13---14
0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10--11--12--13--14--15
K -> (10-4=6) / 2 time = 3 distance for 1 time
K'-> (12 1/2 - 2 1/2 = 10) / 1 4/6 = 6 distance for 1 time
For a speed of the moving coordinate-system of '1' per '1'
time and a lightspeed of '3' per '1' time: 1 distance=100,000km, 1
time=1 sec. The Lorentz transformations give then a lengthcontraction of:
<quote Einstein>
x(beginning of the rod) = 0 (1 - v^2/c^2)^.5
x(end of the rod) = 1 (1 - v^2/c^2)^.5
</quote>
x' = x * (1 - v^2/c^2)^.5
Which comes out as:
x' = x * 0.942809041
Then the Lorentz timedilation effect:
<quote Einstein>
As judged from K, the clock is moving with teh velocity v; as
judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses
between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but
1/(1-v^2/c^2)^.5 seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a con-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly thean when at
rest.
</quote>
Which comes out as
t' = t * 1/(1 - 100,000^2/300,000^2)^.5 = t * 1.060660172
Because of the constraints of usenet linelength we can only do t0 and t1
(the below is on scale):
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
|| t=0
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00* distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4------------5-----K'
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|--------------============================v
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4----K'
K -> 300,000,000 meter per 1 second = 300,000 km/sec
K'-> 2 2/14th * 100,000,000 meter per 19/20th second =
2.2556 * 100,000,000 = 225563.9098 km/sec, 75% of lightspeed.
(Exactly:
K' -> 2 / .942809041 = 2.121320344 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 / 1.060660172 =
.942809041 second = 2.25 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second, 2.25 *
100,000,000 meter = 225,000 km/sec, 75% of lighspeed.)
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
|| t=0
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 *
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4------------5-----K'
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1| v==========================================--------------
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4----K'
K -> 400,000,000 - 100,000,000 = 300,000,000 meter per 1 second
= 300,000 km/sec
K'-> 4 4/14 *100,000,000 - 0=4 2/7 * 100,000,000 meter per 19/20th second
= 4.511278 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second,
= 4.511278 * 100,000,000 meter = 451,127.8 km/sec = 150% of lightspeed.
(Exactly:
K' -> 4 * 100,000,000) / .942809041 = 4.242640687 * 100,000,000 per
1 / 1.060660172 = 0.942809041 seconds =
4.5 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second, 4.5 * 100,000,000 meter
= 450,000 km/sec, 150% of lightspeed
If we force lightspeed in both frames, we get light which is at multiple
points in space:
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
|| t=0
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00* distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4------------5-----K'
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|--------------============================v--------v
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4----K'
K -> 3 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second, = 300,000 km/sec
K'-> 2.85 * 100,000,000 meter per 19/20th second, 2.85/19/20 =
3 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second, = 300,000 km/sec
(Exactly: 2.828427 * 100,000,000 meter per .94280 second =
3 * 100,000,000 meter per 1 second, = 300,000 km/sec)
The difference in position of both hypothetical light wavefronts is,
written as a position in K:
light-1(x) = 3 * 100,000,000 meter = 300,000,000 meter
light-2(x) = 3 * .942809041 + 1 = 3.82842712, * 100,000,000
= 382,842,712.5 meter
300,000,000<>382,842,712.5 -> the light has splitted into multiple discrete
beams.
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
|| t=0
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 *
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4------------5-----K'
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1| v--------------v===========================--------------
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4----K'
Same story, you can compute yourself what the difference in position of
both hypothetical lightbeams is under the Lorentz-transformations.
If you do, you have disproved the validity of the Lorentz-transformations
yourself! (unless you subscribe to a world-splitting solution to SR, which
is not endorsed officially).
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ajjplr$b4b$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
You sound like Keith Stein, a very sick person.
Dirk Vdm
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
> Why aren't you responding to the MATH put forth, can't beat the math eh?
Not interested in your bogus math. I am moved only by experimentally
demonstrated FACTS. Facts rule, theories serve.
The essence of science is prediction verified by experiment. Facts
first, facts first, facts first.
Bob Kolker
Bilge
Re: University physics textbooks mislead, no proof of SR. to usenet:
>Not the form of "why" do we believe these things are true.
>For instance it would be admirable if universities would tell students
>they belief in SR because it keeps certain equations in the same form
Did you understand the architecture of the x86, alpha, and mips
cpu before believing a program would complile on them? Do you
understand them now? Does it stop you from believing the people
that do understand the architecture when they sell you a computer
and/or compiler?
[...]
>No, when i was in university i wasn't so hot against SR yet. I still
>assumed it was a very difficult theory i couldn't understand for some
>mysterious reason (actually i found out i couldn't explain it to anyone
>either).
I'm sure you can't explain the x86 architecture either. Some things
take longer than others.
[...]
>Experiments are always good, as long as they are done by trusted people.
Then, what's the problem (other than being clever enough)? You could
any number of the classic experiments for very little money and do them
better than they were done 100 years ago with a little thought.
josX
>josX said some stuff about
>Re: University physics textbooks mislead, no proof of SR. to usenet:
> >In article <57879.68923$8o4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>, Nicolaas
> >Vroom wrote:
>
> >Not the form of "why" do we believe these things are true.
> >For instance it would be admirable if universities would tell students
> >they belief in SR because it keeps certain equations in the same form
>
> Did you understand the architecture of the x86, alpha, and mips
>cpu before believing a program would complile on them? Do you
>understand them now? Does it stop you from believing the people
>that do understand the architecture when they sell you a computer
>and/or compiler?
Is this your idea of a strawman argument ?
>[...]
> >No, when i was in university i wasn't so hot against SR yet. I still
> >assumed it was a very difficult theory i couldn't understand for some
> >mysterious reason (actually i found out i couldn't explain it to anyone
> >either).
>
> I'm sure you can't explain the x86 architecture either. Some things
>take longer than others.
I can explain some things, and they work out (if you work with the
x86). For instance that you have 4 general purpose registers on the
x86, which are optimized for certain operations ((e)ax, (e)bx, (e)cx,
(e)dx, accumulator, base, count, and data registers IIRC). Then if
you have floating point on your processor you have some floating point
registers and that's basically it, there's also a (e)flags register and
a programcounter register, prolly some others too. These matter the
most for programmers, if your architecture has chases or pipes etc
doesn't really matter for the programming unless you want to do fancy
optimizing maybe.
Alright, got the book: forgot the (e)si and (e)di (source index/destination
index) and (e)bp. And then you have segment registers for getting to a
memory segment where your program is running. Hope this makes you happy.
The difference between a program and a science theory is that a program
actually has to work, where a science theory only has to seem to be working
and have a few moving parts where students can play with.
>[...]
> >Experiments are always good, as long as they are done by trusted people.
>
> Then, what's the problem (other than being clever enough)? You could
>any number of the classic experiments for very little money and do them
>better than they were done 100 years ago with a little thought.
If i win the jackpot (which isn't very likely since i'm not into any
gambling) i'll think about doing the experiment with a single lightbeam
and moving and stationary measuring equipment.
Bilge, let me ask you a counterquestion: why don't the Lorentz formula's
not work out when it comes to lightspeed, how do you either explain they
produce violation of lightspeed in another coordinate system, or light
being in multiple places at once, in effect making the situation exactly
the same as under the Galilean transformations, where lightspeed's
constancy is an impossibility for the same reasons.
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ajlq0r$esc$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
[snip]
>
> Bilge, let me ask you a counterquestion: why don't the Lorentz formula's
> not work out when it comes to lightspeed, how do you either explain they
> produce violation of lightspeed in another coordinate system, or light
> being in multiple places at once,
Someone already told you: light is not an observer.
It can not be a reference frame.
So it can not be "at multiple places at once".
You have not understood the basic postulates and you
have not understood the Lorentz Transformation.
If you had, you would not have written this nonsense.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Vdm
josX
>[snip]
>>
>> Bilge, let me ask you a counterquestion: why don't the Lorentz formula's
>> not work out when it comes to lightspeed, how do you either explain they
>> produce violation of lightspeed in another coordinate system, or light
>> being in multiple places at once,
>
>Someone already told you: light is not an observer.
WTF are you talking about.
It's like i am suspected of stealing a trousers and then someone
comes along and says "but you shouldn't change the oil by day"
while i not even have a car.
>It can not be a reference frame.
This is the weakest strawman i ever saw :-).
Keep it up fake. The speed of light cannot be a constant. Not
under Galilean transformations and not under the Lorentz transformations.
You can jump high, you can jump low, you can do whatever you want, but
that isn't going to change the math.
>So it can not be "at multiple places at once".
>You have not understood the basic postulates and you
>have not understood the Lorentz Transformation.
>If you had, you would not have written this nonsense.
I not only understand them, i am the only one who ever used them
numerically aparently. Try it, compute where the lightfront must be
in the length-contracted time-dilated coordinate system.
Is this a game, trying to see how much stupidity you can feed the
people under the pretence of truth ? Why are you doing this errr...Dirk.
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ajm2ne$qrb$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ajlq0r$esc$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >[snip]
> >>
> >> Bilge, let me ask you a counterquestion: why don't the Lorentz formula's
> >> not work out when it comes to lightspeed, how do you either explain they
> >> produce violation of lightspeed in another coordinate system, or light
> >> being in multiple places at once,
> >
> >Someone already told you: light is not an observer.
>
> WTF are you talking about.
You *really* don't know what I'm talking about?
Okay, I will repeat:
So it can not be "at multiple places at once".
You have not understood the basic postulates and you
have not understood the Lorentz Transformation.
If you had, you would not have written this nonsense.
Dirk Vdm
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ajm2ne$qrb$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ajlq0r$esc$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>> Bilge, let me ask you a counterquestion: why don't the Lorentz formula's
>>>> not work out when it comes to lightspeed, how do you either explain they
>>>> produce violation of lightspeed in another coordinate system, or light
>>>> being in multiple places at once,
>>>
>>>Someone already told you: light is not an observer.
>>
>> WTF are you talking about.
>
>You *really* don't know what I'm talking about?
>Okay, I will repeat:
>
> So it can not be "at multiple places at once".
> You have not understood the basic postulates and you
> have not understood the Lorentz Transformation.
> If you had, you would not have written this nonsense.
I never use the light as a pov/observer, i use the light as an
object in my coordinate systems.
Is there a problem with that ? (other then that it disproves SR)
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ajm3iq$s0e$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
*Still* don't get it???
Dirk Vdm
Bilge
Re: University physics textbooks mislead, no proof of SR. to usenet:
>In article <slrnalso5...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>, Bilge wrote:
>>josX said some stuff about
>>Re: University physics textbooks mislead, no proof of SR. to usenet:
>> >In article <57879.68923$8o4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>, Nicolaas
>> >Vroom wrote:
>>
>> >Not the form of "why" do we believe these things are true.
>> >For instance it would be admirable if universities would tell students
>> >they belief in SR because it keeps certain equations in the same form
>>
>> Did you understand the architecture of the x86, alpha, and mips
>>cpu before believing a program would complile on them? Do you
>>understand them now? Does it stop you from believing the people
>>that do understand the architecture when they sell you a computer
>>and/or compiler?
>
>Is this your idea of a strawman argument ?
Why? Did you want one of those?
>
>>[...]
>> >No, when i was in university i wasn't so hot against SR yet. I still
>> >assumed it was a very difficult theory i couldn't understand for some
>> >mysterious reason (actually i found out i couldn't explain it to anyone
>> >either).
>>
>> I'm sure you can't explain the x86 architecture either. Some things
>>take longer than others.
>
>I can explain some things, and they work out (if you work with the
>x86). For instance that you have 4 general purpose registers on the
>x86, which are optimized for certain operations ((e)ax, (e)bx, (e)cx,
>(e)dx, accumulator, base, count, and data registers IIRC). Then if
>you have floating point on your processor you have some floating point
>registers and that's basically it, there's also a (e)flags register and
>a programcounter register, prolly some others too. These matter the
>most for programmers, if your architecture has chases or pipes etc
>doesn't really matter for the programming unless you want to do fancy
>optimizing maybe.
get the correct results. Just because someone told you it would, doesn't
mean you should believe them. Go ahead and say that you know from
experience so that I can cite examples of where such an assumption
backfired.
>
>Alright, got the book: forgot the (e)si and (e)di (source index/destination
>index) and (e)bp. And then you have segment registers for getting to a
>memory segment where your program is running. Hope this makes you happy.
That isn't a lot about the architecture. It's very little and certainly
not enough to be personally sure that the chip does what some computer
scientists claim it will.
>The difference between a program and a science theory is that a program
>actually has to work,
Then why do so many crash?
>where a science theory only has to seem to be working
>and have a few moving parts where students can play with.
I claim you only believe that because you were more successful
getting immediate positive feedback from writing a program that
didn't keep dumping core, than you got from science, not that
you have any greater intrinsic understanding of computers or
that computers are any simpler.
[...]
>
>Bilge, let me ask you a counterquestion: why don't the Lorentz formula's
>not work out when it comes to lightspeed, how do you either explain they
>produce violation of lightspeed in another coordinate system,
Huh? Rephrase the question so that I know precisely what you are asking.
>or light
>being in multiple places at once, in effect making the situation exactly
>the same as under the Galilean transformations, where lightspeed's
>constancy is an impossibility for the same reasons.
Galilean transforms are just lorentz transforms with c->infinity.
josX
Get what Dirk, get that you guys are trying to pull of something on us ?
josX
>josX said some stuff about
>Re: University physics textbooks mislead, no proof of SR. to usenet:
>>In article <slrnalso5...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>, Bilge wrote:
>>>josX said some stuff about
>>>Re: University physics textbooks mislead, no proof of SR. to usenet:
>>> >In article <57879.68923$8o4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>, Nicolaas
>>> >Vroom wrote:
>>>
>>> >Not the form of "why" do we believe these things are true.
>>> >For instance it would be admirable if universities would tell students
>>> >they belief in SR because it keeps certain equations in the same form
>>>
>>> Did you understand the architecture of the x86, alpha, and mips
>>>cpu before believing a program would complile on them? Do you
>>>understand them now? Does it stop you from believing the people
>>>that do understand the architecture when they sell you a computer
>>>and/or compiler?
>>
>>Is this your idea of a strawman argument ?
>
> No, it's my idea of an argument that might not sail over your head.
>Why? Did you want one of those?
haha (not)
>>>[...]
>>> >No, when i was in university i wasn't so hot against SR yet. I still
>>> >assumed it was a very difficult theory i couldn't understand for some
>>> >mysterious reason (actually i found out i couldn't explain it to anyone
>>> >either).
>>>
>>> I'm sure you can't explain the x86 architecture either. Some things
>>>take longer than others.
>>
>>I can explain some things, and they work out (if you work with the
>>x86). For instance that you have 4 general purpose registers on the
>>x86, which are optimized for certain operations ((e)ax, (e)bx, (e)cx,
>>(e)dx, accumulator, base, count, and data registers IIRC). Then if
>>you have floating point on your processor you have some floating point
>>registers and that's basically it, there's also a (e)flags register and
>>a programcounter register, prolly some others too. These matter the
>>most for programmers, if your architecture has chases or pipes etc
>>doesn't really matter for the programming unless you want to do fancy
>>optimizing maybe.
>
> It certainly does matter, since you want your program to run and
>get the correct results. Just because someone told you it would, doesn't
>mean you should believe them. Go ahead and say that you know from
>experience so that I can cite examples of where such an assumption
>backfired.
Drop the "josX is always wrong" act.
>>Alright, got the book: forgot the (e)si and (e)di (source index/destination
>>index) and (e)bp. And then you have segment registers for getting to a
>>memory segment where your program is running. Hope this makes you happy.
>
> That isn't a lot about the architecture.
WTfrigginFuck do you want me to do here, explain everything i know about
programming to you just because you otherwise will make fun of me?
> It's very little and certainly
>not enough to be personally sure that the chip does what some computer
>scientists claim it will.
>
> >The difference between a program and a science theory is that a program
> >actually has to work,
>
> Then why do so many crash?
Science theories you mean like SR?
Because there is no machine to testrun them on, and people are generally
extremely stupid.
> >where a science theory only has to seem to be working
> >and have a few moving parts where students can play with.
>
> I claim you only believe that because you were more successful
>getting immediate positive feedback from writing a program that
>didn't keep dumping core, than you got from science, not that
>you have any greater intrinsic understanding of computers or
>that computers are any simpler.
Computers do what they claim to do, scientist claim a lot, but
when it comes to it they are bugs.
Have you found your calculator already?
If so, do some calculations on moving coordinate systems and the
position of a lightbeam in them. Make sure you are not so shortsighted
to only do computations for one direction of light.
>[...]
>>Bilge, let me ask you a counterquestion: why don't the Lorentz formula's
>>not work out when it comes to lightspeed, how do you either explain they
>>produce violation of lightspeed in another coordinate system,
>
> Huh? Rephrase the question so that I know precisely what you are asking.
Why do the Lorentz transformations not make light have a constant
velocity among moving coordinate systems, making the speed of light
as a constant encounter the exact same impossibilities as under
normal coordinate systems which move relative to eachother.
How do you explain the impossibilities brought on by the assumption that
light's speed must be a constant in every coordinate system.
>>or light
>>being in multiple places at once, in effect making the situation exactly
>>the same as under the Galilean transformations, where lightspeed's
>>constancy is an impossibility for the same reasons.
>
> Galilean transforms are just lorentz transforms with c->infinity.
Yes, that's just a mathematical peculiarity. Galilean transformations
don't need light to go at infinite speed at all.
--
jos
Mike Varney
<SNIP>
*sigh*
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>>
> Yes, that's just a mathematical peculiarity. Galilean transformations
don't need light to go at infinite speed at all.
>
If you look at the equations of the Lorentz Transform and let c -->
infinity you get in the limit
> > don't need light to go at infinite speed at all.
>
If you look at the equations of the Lorentz Transform and let c -->
infinity you get in the limit the Galilean Transform. Try it out and see
for yourself.
Bob Kolker
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ajmfuj$f7g$4...@news1.xs4all.nl...
No, no leg pulling is done on this one.
If you really don't see it, there we have proof that you
really don't know what the hell you are talking about.
And since you are such an asshole, I am not going to
help you.
Enjoy looking for a clue. In the process you might learn
what an idiot you are. You might even learn how honest
you are ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3D5ECEB5...@attbi.com...
At this moment he's trying to take the limit with his diagrams ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Robert J. Kolker
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>
>
> At this moment he's trying to take the limit with his diagrams ;-)
>
That means he will need a -very- wide screen.
Bob Kolker
> Dirk Vdm
>
>
>
>
Bilge
Re: University physics textbooks mislead, no proof of SR. to usenet:
>Bilge wrote:
>>>>josX said some stuff about
>>>Is this your idea of a strawman argument ?
>>
>> No, it's my idea of an argument that might not sail over your head.
>>Why? Did you want one of those?
>
>haha (not)
Then don't ask for one as if you want me to consider it.
[...]
>> It certainly does matter, since you want your program to run and
>>get the correct results. Just because someone told you it would, doesn't
>>mean you should believe them. Go ahead and say that you know from
>>experience so that I can cite examples of where such an assumption
>>backfired.
>
>Drop the "josX is always wrong" act.
I can't. It's your act. It wasn't my choice for you to be wrong.
>>>index) and (e)bp. And then you have segment registers for getting to a
>>>memory segment where your program is running. Hope this makes you happy.
>>
>> That isn't a lot about the architecture.
>
>WTfrigginFuck do you want me to do here, explain everything i know about
>programming to you just because you otherwise will make fun of me?
No, I just expect you to understand the proofs that went into all of
theorems which determined how a cpu is designed so that you don't have
to just believe all that stuff about pipelining, branch prediction or
other design features. After all, your complaint about special relativity
is that everyone should understand it completely, whether or not they
have any need or interest, before using any of the results. Let's apply
things equally to disciplines other than one you apparently didn't
grasp and are pissed off about.
>> >The difference between a program and a science theory is that a program
>> >actually has to work,
>>
>> Then why do so many crash?
>
>Science theories you mean like SR?
No, I mean computers and the address, f00f, comes to mind.
>Because there is no machine to testrun them on, and people are generally
>extremely stupid.
Since your argumebt is that there are machines upon which to test
computer programs, then what excuse does anyone, including yourself,
have for not understanding the architecture completely so that after
you check the theorems in donald knuth's book for correctness, you
can implement them in your programs to maximize the use of the registers
and other resources as well as insure your program doesn't crash? Is
it because you are just parroting the information about programmming
without any real knowledge? I have a short program (< 10 lines) for
you to explain included at the end.
>> I claim you only believe that because you were more successful
>>getting immediate positive feedback from writing a program that
>>didn't keep dumping core, than you got from science, not that
>>you have any greater intrinsic understanding of computers or
>>that computers are any simpler.
>
>Computers do what they claim to do,
Is that a fact? See my program at the end.
> scientist claim a lot, but when it comes to it they are bugs.
You don't know enough to know what scientists claim or else you
wouldn't need to resort to claims they don't make in order to meet
your agenda of debunking special relativity.
> Have you found your calculator already?
>If so, do some calculations on moving coordinate systems and the
>position of a lightbeam in them. Make sure you are not so shortsighted
>to only do computations for one direction of light.
Why is that a problem?
>>[...]
>>>Bilge, let me ask you a counterquestion: why don't the Lorentz formula's
>>>not work out when it comes to lightspeed, how do you either explain they
>>>produce violation of lightspeed in another coordinate system,
>>
>> Huh? Rephrase the question so that I know precisely what you are asking.
>
>Why do the Lorentz transformations not make light have a constant
>velocity among moving coordinate systems, making the speed of light
>as a constant encounter the exact same impossibilities as under
>normal coordinate systems which move relative to eachother.
Lorentz transforms don't "make" light or anything else "do" anything.
Nature determined those things. Lorentz transforms merely provide the
means to calculate what nature decided to do.
>How do you explain the impossibilities brought on by the assumption that
>light's speed must be a constant in every coordinate system.
There are no impossibilities to explain, so you'll have to find
someone with the same misunderstanding you have to see how they
explain them.
>>>the same as under the Galilean transformations, where lightspeed's
>>>constancy is an impossibility for the same reasons.
>>
>> Galilean transforms are just lorentz transforms with c->infinity.
>
>Yes, that's just a mathematical peculiarity. Galilean transformations
>don't need light to go at infinite speed at all.
Neither do lorentz transforms. The requirement for `c' to be the
speed of light comes from maxwell's equations, which do require
`c' to be the speed of light so that the speed of light has to
be infinity in the galilean transforms, too. Argue with maxwell's
equations if you don't like that fact. Special realativity doesn't
really care and the speed of light is only an artifact of choosing
`c' so that maxwell's equations are correct.
If you really think computers do "what they claim" (without really
understanding what it is they claim), explain the following reason
this program gets the wrong answer despite being formally correct.
There are no errors other than the assumption that the computer
multiplies numbers correctly.
The bessel function J(1)_n is DEFINED by the recursion relation:
J(1)_n+1 = 2n J(1)_n - J(1)_n-1
So that given J(1)_0 and J(1)_1, (written as the array J[] in the
program):
J(1)_0 = (double)0.7651976866
J(1)_1 = (double)0.4400505857
you can calculate J(1)_n. These are the values are correct to the 10
decimal places given. The program does nothing but multiply and and add 8
times using the _exact_ relationship, but it gets the wrong answer. By a
considerable amount. Why do you think that is? If you don't know, aren't
you simply parroting what you've been told about computers "doing what
they claim to do" without any real knowledge?
-------------
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
int main(){
double x,J[10];
int n;
J[0] = (double)0.7651976866;
J[1] = (double)0.4400505857;
for(n=1; n<=9; n++){
J[n+1] = 2.0*n*J[n] - J[n-1];
fprintf(stdout, "%+1.9f\n", J[n+1]);
}
}
josX
Don't try to pull this crap on me.
> so that you don't have
>to just believe all that stuff about pipelining, branch prediction or
>other design features. After all, your complaint about special relativity
>is that everyone should understand it completely, whether or not they
>have any need or interest, before using any of the results.
My complaint is that it is wrong, and that complete understanding is
only possible if you include the wrongness of SR in the picture.
> Let's apply
>things equally to disciplines other than one you apparently didn't
>grasp and are pissed off about.
Science and programming are not the same thing. And you are setting up
a strawman, as usual.
>>> >The difference between a program and a science theory is that a program
>>> >actually has to work,
>>>
>>> Then why do so many crash?
>>
>>Science theories you mean like SR?
>
> No, I mean computers and the address, f00f, comes to mind.
>
>>Because there is no machine to testrun them on, and people are generally
>>extremely stupid.
>
> Since your argumebt is that there are machines upon which to test
>computer programs, then what excuse does anyone, including yourself,
>have for not understanding the architecture completely so that after
>you check the theorems in donald knuth's book for correctness, you
>can implement them in your programs to maximize the use of the registers
>and other resources as well as insure your program doesn't crash? Is
>it because you are just parroting the information about programmming
>without any real knowledge? I have a short program (< 10 lines) for
>you to explain included at the end.
here, enjoy my programming skillz: http://www.xs4all.nl/~joshb
>>> I claim you only believe that because you were more successful
>>>getting immediate positive feedback from writing a program that
>>>didn't keep dumping core, than you got from science, not that
>>>you have any greater intrinsic understanding of computers or
>>>that computers are any simpler.
>>
>>Computers do what they claim to do,
>
> Is that a fact? See my program at the end.
>
>> scientist claim a lot, but when it comes to it they are bugs.
>
> You don't know enough to know what scientists claim or else you
>wouldn't need to resort to claims they don't make in order to meet
>your agenda of debunking special relativity.
They don't make the claim "the speed of light is the same in a vacuo
in all inertial reference frames" ?
Sure they do, including you. It's called SR. It might later be called
"the great insanity".
>> Have you found your calculator already?
>>If so, do some calculations on moving coordinate systems and the
>>position of a lightbeam in them. Make sure you are not so shortsighted
>>to only do computations for one direction of light.
>
> Why is that a problem?
It doesn't work out.
You are breaking up.
> Argue with maxwell's
>equations if you don't like that fact. Special realativity doesn't
>really care and the speed of light is only an artifact of choosing
>`c' so that maxwell's equations are correct.
>
>If you really think computers do "what they claim" (without really
>understanding what it is they claim),
computers don't claim, they do, manuals claim.
> explain the following reason
>this program gets the wrong answer despite being formally correct.
Then it must not be formally correct eh?
This is exactly my point: you think it is 'formally correct' while
in fact it is wrong. You don't have the possibility of compiling
science theories against reality. Well actually you can, using
experiments, but you never do the required experiment to base SR
on in the first place.
>There are no errors other than the assumption that the computer
>multiplies numbers correctly.
Maybe you shouldn't make that assumption. (sigh)
> The bessel function J(1)_n is DEFINED by the recursion relation:
>
> J(1)_n+1 = 2n J(1)_n - J(1)_n-1
Get lost, i don't like recursion, it leads to errors.
> So that given J(1)_0 and J(1)_1, (written as the array J[] in the
>program):
>
> J(1)_0 = (double)0.7651976866
> J(1)_1 = (double)0.4400505857
>
> you can calculate J(1)_n. These are the values are correct to the 10
>decimal places given. The program does nothing but multiply and and add 8
>times using the _exact_ relationship, but it gets the wrong answer. By a
>considerable amount. Why do you think that is? If you don't know, aren't
>you simply parroting what you've been told about computers "doing what
>they claim to do" without any real knowledge?
Where do you think the programs on my website come from, fartbrain.
>-------------
>#include <stdio.h>
>#include <math.h>
>
>int main(){
>
> double x,J[10];
> int n;
>
> J[0] = (double)0.7651976866;
> J[1] = (double)0.4400505857;
>
> for(n=1; n<=9; n++){
> J[n+1] = 2.0*n*J[n] - J[n-1];
> fprintf(stdout, "%+1.9f\n", J[n+1]);
> }
>}
% gcc tmp.c; ./a.out
+0.114903485
+0.019563354
+0.002476636
+0.000249736
+0.000020725
-0.000001038
-0.000035264
-0.000563182
-0.010102017
what do you want with this.
oh right the "bessel function" <LOL>
> J(1)_n+1 = 2n J(1)_n - J(1)_n-1
Looks alright from the programming (lose the x variable).
--
jos
josX
>Bilge wrote:
<snip>
>>-------------
>>#include <stdio.h>
>>#include <math.h>
Why do you include this library?
You don't know really what you are doing yourself are you. That x
variable is a nice clue that it took you considderable work to get
this on paper.
>>int main(){
>>
>> double x,J[10];
>> int n;
>>
>> J[0] = (double)0.7651976866;
>> J[1] = (double)0.4400505857;
>>
>> for(n=1; n<=9; n++){
>> J[n+1] = 2.0*n*J[n] - J[n-1];
>> fprintf(stdout, "%+1.9f\n", J[n+1]);
>> }
>>}
>% gcc tmp.c; ./a.out
>+0.114903485
>+0.019563354
>+0.002476636
>+0.000249736
>+0.000020725
>-0.000001038
>-0.000035264
>-0.000563182
>-0.010102017
>what do you want with this.
>oh right the "bessel function" <LOL>
>
>> J(1)_n+1 = 2n J(1)_n - J(1)_n-1
>
>Looks alright from the programming (lose the x variable).
Here i have a fun program for you, i promise it ain't no virus (but
i'm sure you can check that for yourself can't you hehe):
Does this proof i can program to you at least just a little bit ? :-))
Does it proof i can at least think a little bit ?
/* a clock. JosBoersema Oct2000 */
/* Oct2001 added options */
/* Compile on 2.2.17 Debian/Linux: gcc thisfile.c -lm -lncurses */
/* This code has not been optimised or anything like that. */
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <ncurses.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <math.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <signal.h>
struct{
time_t alrm;
time_t cntdwn;
char *txt;
short unlim;
int off_y;
int off_x;
int max_y;
int max_x;
int min_y;
int min_x;
double width;
double hight;
signed short beat_terminal;
short reverse;
char *erase_sec;
}glob_d={0,0,"",1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,""};
#define SLEEP_SYSTIME_ERROR 2
#define REVERSE_VIDEO 0
#define SLEEP_SYSTIME_ERROR_STR "2"
#define COLOR_HOUR COLOR_WHITE
#define COLOR_HOUR_BG COLOR_BLACK
#define COLOR_MIN COLOR_WHITE
#define COLOR_MIN_BG COLOR_BLACK
#define COLOR_SEC COLOR_RED
#define COLOR_SEC_BG COLOR_BLACK
#define ERASE "."
#define SEC_LENTH 120
#define MIN_LENTH 120
#define HOUR_LENTH 60
#define PROG "clockalrm"
#define USAGE_EXIT 1
#define SYSTIME_EXIT 2
#define PAST_EXIT 3
#define ERR_MKTIME_EXIT 4
void error_handler(char *message,char *message2,int value);
void usage_handler(void);
void output_sec(time_t sec);
void output_min(time_t min,time_t sec);
void output_hour(time_t hour,time_t min);
int *get_screen_yx(double fract,int base,int len);
void sigwinch_handler(int sig);
void set_basic_screen();
void mvaddstr_draw(int y,int x,int octant,int color);
int main(int argc,char **argv)
{
long signed zone_offs;
short local=1;
char *args_tmpp;
short sec_arm=1;
int was_systime_error=0;
time_t sec1970;
time_t secdiff;
struct tm *utsp;
char catch_ctime[25]={0};
char *catch_ct_p;
int turns,i;
short init=0;
int delay=1;
long int time_tmp=0;
if(-1==(sec1970=time(0))){
error_handler("systime error","\n",SYSTIME_EXIT);
}
localtime(&sec1970);
zone_offs=-(long signed)timezone;
signal(SIGWINCH,sigwinch_handler);
if(1<argc){
long signed cntdwn_offs=0,alrm_offs=0;
for(i=1;i<argc;i++){
int check_exist;
check_exist=0;
if(0==strncmp("-d",*(argv+i),2)||0==strncmp
("--date",*(argv+i),6)){
glob_d.unlim=0;
if(i+1<argc&&19==strlen(*(argv+i+1))){
struct tm tmp;
i++;
tmp.tm_mon=strtol(*(argv+i),0,10)-1;
tmp.tm_mday=strtol(*(argv+i)+3,0,10);
tmp.tm_year=strtol(*(argv+i)+6,0,10)-1900;
tmp.tm_hour=strtol(*(argv+i)+11,0,10);
tmp.tm_min=strtol(*(argv+i)+14,0,10);
tmp.tm_sec=strtol(*(argv+i)+17,0,10);
if(-1==(glob_d.cntdwn=mktime(&tmp))){
error_handler("mktime(3) error",
", could not make a time from a"
"rguments (-h for usage)\n",ERR_MKTIME_EXIT);
}
utsp=localtime(&glob_d.cntdwn);
glob_d.cntdwn-=(time_t)timezone-3600 * (*utsp).tm_isdst;
}
else{
error_handler("-d (date) requires date and time in on"
"e argument (full year)",", see -h\n",USAGE_EXIT);
}
check_exist=1;
}
else if(0==strncmp("-a",*(argv+i),2)||0==strncmp
("--alarm",*(argv+i),7)){
if(i+1<argc){
i++;
alrm_offs=strtol(*(argv+i),&args_tmpp,10) * 60;
alrm_offs+=strtol(args_tmpp+1,0,10);
}
else{
error_handler("-a (alarm) requires an ar"
"gument (M:S)",", see -h\n",USAGE_EXIT);
}
check_exist=1;
}
else if(0==strncmp("-t",*(argv+i),2)||0==strncmp
("--text",*(argv+i),6)){
if(i+1<argc){
i++;
glob_d.txt=*(argv+i);
}
else{
error_handler("-t (text) requires an argu"
"ment (STRING)",", see -h\n",USAGE_EXIT);
}
check_exist=1;
}
else if(0==strncmp("-o",*(argv+i),2)||0==strncmp
("--offset",*(argv+i),8)){
glob_d.unlim=0;
if(i+1<argc){
i++;
cntdwn_offs=abs(strtol(*(argv+i),&args_tmpp,10) * 60);
cntdwn_offs+=strtol(args_tmpp+1,0,10);
if('-'==**(argv+i)){
cntdwn_offs=-cntdwn_offs;
}
}
else{
error_handler("-o (offset) req"
"uires an argument (M:S)",", see -h\n",USAGE_EXIT);
}
check_exist=1;
}
else if(0==strncmp("-z",*(argv+i),2)||0==strncmp
("--zone",*(argv+i),6)){
local=0;
if(i+1<argc){
i++;
zone_offs=abs(strtol(*(argv+i),&args_tmpp,10) * 3600);
zone_offs+=strtol(args_tmpp+1,&args_tmpp,10) * 60;
zone_offs+=strtol(args_tmpp+1,0,10);
if('-'==**(argv+i)){
zone_offs=-zone_offs;
}
}
else{
error_handler("-z (zone) requires an argum"
"ent (H:M:S)",", see -h\n",USAGE_EXIT);
}
check_exist=1;
}
else if(0==strncmp("-c",*(argv+i),2)||0==strncmp
("--countdown",*(argv+i),11)){
glob_d.unlim=0;
glob_d.reverse=1;
check_exist=1;
}
else if(0==strncmp("-s",*(argv+i),2)||0==strncmp
("--sleep",*(argv+i),7)){
if(i+1<argc){
i++;
delay=(int)strtol(*(argv+i),0,10);
}
else{
error_handler("-s (sleep) requires an argu"
"ment (SECONDS)",", see '-h\n'",USAGE_EXIT);
}
check_exist=1;
}
else if(0==strncmp("-n",*(argv+i),2)||0==strncmp
("--no-sec-arm",*(argv+i),12)){
sec_arm=0;
check_exist=1;
}
else if(0==strncmp("-h",*(argv+i),2)||0==strncmp
("--help",*(argv+i),6)){
usage_handler();
}
if(0==check_exist){
error_handler(*(argv+i)," :unrecognized option, s"
"ee -h\n",USAGE_EXIT);
}
}
if(0==glob_d.unlim){
if(-1==(time_tmp=time(0))){
error_handler("systime error","\n",SYSTIME_EXIT);
}
else if(0==glob_d.cntdwn){
glob_d.cntdwn=time_tmp+zone_offs;
}
glob_d.cntdwn+=cntdwn_offs;
glob_d.alrm=glob_d.cntdwn-alrm_offs;
if(time_tmp+zone_offs>glob_d.cntdwn){
error_handler("value in the past: ",asctime
(gmtime(&glob_d.cntdwn)),PAST_EXIT);
}
}
}
set_basic_screen();
do{
if(1==glob_d.beat_terminal){
sigwinch_handler(0);
glob_d.beat_terminal=0;
init=0;
}
if(1<init){sleep(delay);}
else{
init++;
if(1<init){
glob_d.erase_sec=ERASE;
}
}
while(-1==(sec1970=time(0))){
mvaddstr(glob_d.off_y-1,glob_d.off_x-8,"!GET TIME ERROR!");
mvaddstr(glob_d.off_y,glob_d.off_x-12,"(retry every "
SLEEP_SYSTIME_ERROR_STR " seconds)");
sleep(SLEEP_SYSTIME_ERROR);
was_systime_error=1;
}
sec1970+=zone_offs;
if(1==was_systime_error){
if(0==glob_d.unlim&&sec1970>glob_d.cntdwn){
error_handler(glob_d.txt,"\nCouldn't get systi"
"me, countdown elapsed.\n",SYSTIME_EXIT);;
}
was_systime_error=0;
sigwinch_handler(0);
}
if(1==glob_d.reverse){
secdiff=glob_d.cntdwn-sec1970;
turns=(int)(secdiff / 43200);
utsp=gmtime(&secdiff);
}
else{
utsp=gmtime(&sec1970);
}
if(1==sec_arm){
output_sec((*utsp).tm_sec);
}
output_min((*utsp).tm_min,(*utsp).tm_sec);
output_hour((*utsp).tm_hour,(*utsp).tm_min);
if(1==glob_d.reverse){
utsp=gmtime(&sec1970);
}
if(0==local&&1==glob_d.unlim){
if((*utsp).tm_hour<12){
mvaddstr(glob_d.max_y-1,glob_d.min_x+4,"AM");
}
else{
mvaddstr(glob_d.max_y-1,glob_d.min_x+4,"PM");
}
}
if(0==glob_d.unlim){
catch_ct_p=asctime(utsp);
strncpy(catch_ctime,catch_ct_p,24);
mvaddstr(glob_d.max_y-2,glob_d.min_x, catch_ctime);
if(1==glob_d.reverse){
move(0,glob_d.off_x);clrtoeol();
for(i=0;i<turns;i++){
mvaddstr(glob_d.min_y,
glob_d.off_x+i,"<");
}
}
if(sec1970>glob_d.alrm){beep();}
}
move(glob_d.off_y,glob_d.off_x);
refresh();
} while(1==glob_d.unlim || sec1970<glob_d.cntdwn);
endwin();
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
void sigwinch_handler(int sig)
{
clear();
refresh();
endwin();
set_basic_screen();
glob_d.beat_terminal=1;
}
void set_basic_screen()
{
initscr();
curs_set(0);
start_color();
init_pair(COLOR_HOUR,COLOR_HOUR,COLOR_HOUR_BG);
init_pair(COLOR_MIN,COLOR_MIN,COLOR_MIN_BG);
init_pair(COLOR_SEC,COLOR_SEC,COLOR_SEC_BG);
if(1==glob_d.unlim){
glob_d.width=COLS/(double)266.6;
glob_d.off_x=(int)(COLS/2);
}
else{
glob_d.width=COLS/(double)400;
glob_d.off_x=(int)(COLS/2+8);
}
glob_d.off_y=(int)(LINES/2+1);
glob_d.max_y=LINES-1;
glob_d.max_x=COLS-1;
glob_d.min_y=0;
glob_d.min_x=0;
glob_d.hight=LINES/(double)250;
mvaddstr(glob_d.min_y,glob_d.min_x,glob_d.txt);
if(0==glob_d.unlim){
mvaddstr(glob_d.max_y -1,glob_d.min_x,
asctime(gmtime(&glob_d.alrm)));
mvaddstr(glob_d.max_y ,glob_d.min_x,
asctime(gmtime(&glob_d.cntdwn)));
}
return;
}
void error_handler(char *message,char *message2,int value)
{
endwin();
fprintf(stderr,PROG": %s%s",message,message2);
exit(value);
}
void usage_handler(void)
{
endwin();
fprintf(stderr,
"Clockalrm, usage:\n"
"-h|--help :usage:\n"
"-d|--date \"MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM:SS\" :program termination date/time:\n"
"-o|--offset MINUTES:SECONDS :offset to -d, or from `now' if n"
"o -d option:\n"
"-a|--alarm MINUTES:SECONDS :alarm goes before termination, de"
"fault 0:0:\n"
"-c|--countdown :countdown clock:\n"
"-t|--text \"STRING ...\" :display text:\n"
"-n|--no-sec-arm :don't print seconds arm:\n"
"-z|--zone HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS :timezone:\n"
"-s|--sleep SECONDS :sleep between sampling time, default 1:\n"
"Without options no alarm/exit.\n"
);
exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}
void output_sec(time_t sec)
{
static int last_sec=0;
int *yx,i;
int octant;
for(i=0;SEC_LENTH>i;i++){
yx=get_screen_yx(last_sec,60,i);
mvaddstr(*yx,*(yx+1),glob_d.erase_sec);
}
octant=(int)(((double)sec+3.75) / 7.5);
for(i=0;SEC_LENTH>i;i++){
yx=get_screen_yx(sec,60,i);
mvaddstr_draw(*yx,*(yx+1),octant,COLOR_SEC);
}
last_sec=sec;
return;
}
void output_min(time_t min,time_t sec)
{
static double last_min=0;
double fract_min;
int *yx,i;
int octant;
for(i=0;MIN_LENTH>i;i++){
yx=get_screen_yx(last_min,60,i);
mvaddstr(*yx,*(yx+1)," ");
}
fract_min=min+sec/(double)60;
octant=(int)((fract_min+3.75) / 7.5);
for(i=0;MIN_LENTH>i;i++){
yx=get_screen_yx(fract_min,60,i);
mvaddstr_draw(*yx,*(yx+1),octant,COLOR_MIN);
}
last_min=fract_min;
return;
}
void output_hour(time_t hour,time_t min)
{
static double last_hour=0;
double fract_hour;
int *yx,i;
int octant;
for(i=0;HOUR_LENTH>i;i++){
yx=get_screen_yx(last_hour,12,i);
mvaddstr(*yx,*(yx+1)," ");
}
if(12<=hour){hour -=12;}
fract_hour=hour+min/(double)60;
octant=(int)((fract_hour+.75) / 1.5);
for(i=0;HOUR_LENTH>i;i++){
yx=get_screen_yx(fract_hour,12,i);
mvaddstr_draw(*yx,*(yx+1),octant,COLOR_HOUR);
}
last_hour=fract_hour;
return;
}
int *get_screen_yx(double fract,int base,int len)
{
static signed int screen_yx[2] ={0};
double tmp;
tmp= fract /(double)base * 6.2831853;
*screen_yx =(int)( -cos(tmp) * len * glob_d.hight
+ glob_d.off_y);
*(screen_yx+1) =(int)( sin(tmp) * len * glob_d.width
+ glob_d.off_x);
if(glob_d.max_y<*screen_yx){
*screen_yx=glob_d.max_y;
}
if(glob_d.max_x<*(screen_yx+1) ){
*(screen_yx+1)=glob_d.max_x;
}
if(glob_d.min_y>*screen_yx){
*screen_yx=glob_d.min_y;
}
if(glob_d.min_x>*(screen_yx+1) ){
*(screen_yx+1)=glob_d.min_x;
}
if(0==glob_d.unlim&&*(screen_yx+1)<=glob_d.min_x+23&&*screen_yx
>=glob_d.max_y-2){
*(screen_yx+1)=glob_d.min_x+23;
*screen_yx =glob_d.min_y-2;
}
return screen_yx;
}
void mvaddstr_draw(int y,int x,int octant,int color)
{
switch(octant){
case 0:
mvaddch(y,x,REVERSE_VIDEO|COLOR_PAIR(color)|'|');
break;
case 1:
mvaddch(y,x,REVERSE_VIDEO|COLOR_PAIR(color)|'/');
break;
case 2:
mvaddch(y,x,REVERSE_VIDEO|COLOR_PAIR(color)|'=');
break;
case 3:
mvaddch(y,x,REVERSE_VIDEO|COLOR_PAIR(color)|'\\');
break;
case 4:
mvaddch(y,x,REVERSE_VIDEO|COLOR_PAIR(color)|'|');
break;
case 5:
mvaddch(y,x,REVERSE_VIDEO|COLOR_PAIR(color)|'/');
break;
case 6:
mvaddch(y,x,REVERSE_VIDEO|COLOR_PAIR(color)|'=');
break;
case 7:
mvaddch(y,x,REVERSE_VIDEO|COLOR_PAIR(color)|'\\');
break;
case 8:
mvaddch(y,x,REVERSE_VIDEO|COLOR_PAIR(color)|'|');
break;
default:
mvaddch(y,x,REVERSE_VIDEO|COLOR_PAIR(color)|'*');
break;
}
return;
}
--
jos
Spaceman
>If you look at the equations of the Lorentz Transform and let c -->
>infinity you get in the limit
If you let a = you
and let b= a parrot
then,
you are a parrot.
and your "let" crap allows such proof.
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Bilge
>>[bilge]
>> No, I just expect you to understand the proofs that went into all of
>>theorems which determined how a cpu is designed
>
>Don't try to pull this crap on me.
So, you're just parotting k&r, huh?
[...]
>My complaint is that it is wrong, and that complete understanding is
>only possible if you include the wrongness of SR in the picture.
Unfortunately, you had to invent things that were wrong in order to
have a complaint. So far, you haven't actually complained about anything
that has anything to do with special relativity except your interpretation
of it.
[...]
>Science and programming are not the same thing. And you are setting up
>a strawman, as usual.
Neither is science and the first year curriculum at a university,
but that didn't stop you from making the comparison.
[...]
>> You don't know enough to know what scientists claim or else you
>>wouldn't need to resort to claims they don't make in order to meet
>>your agenda of debunking special relativity.
>
>They don't make the claim "the speed of light is the same in a vacuo
>in all inertial reference frames" ?
That doesn't debunk special relativity.
>Sure they do, including you. It's called SR. It might later be called
>"the great insanity".
In the meantime, we'll refer to you as the great insanity.
>>> Have you found your calculator already? If so, do some calculations
>>> on moving coordinate systems and the position of a lightbeam in
>>> them. Make sure you are not so shortsighted to only do computations
>>> for one direction of light.
>>
>> Why is that a problem?
>
>It doesn't work out.
Try putting batteries in your calculator.
[...]
>> Neither do lorentz transforms. The requirement for `c' to be the
>>speed of light comes from maxwell's equations, which do require
>>`c' to be the speed of light so that the speed of light has to
>>be infinity in the galilean transforms, too.
>
>You are breaking up.
Then don't write your own screen handling programs. The text looks
fine to me.
>
>> Argue with maxwell's
>>equations if you don't like that fact. Special realativity doesn't
>>really care and the speed of light is only an artifact of choosing
>>`c' so that maxwell's equations are correct.
>>
>>If you really think computers do "what they claim" (without really
>>understanding what it is they claim),
>
>computers don't claim, they do, manuals claim.
That contradicts your claim just two posts ago:
Message-ID: <ajmfut$f7g$5...@news1.xs4all.nl>
"Computers do what they claim to do, scientist claim a lot, but
when it comes to it they are bugs."
>> explain the following reason this program gets the wrong answer
>> despite being formally correct.
>
>Then it must not be formally correct eh?
Formally enough that you don't understand why it gets the wrong answer.
>This is exactly my point: you think it is 'formally correct' while
>in fact it is wrong. You don't have the possibility of compiling
>science theories against reality.
That conflicts with reality. Not only do I know those things, but
I obviously know why the computer gets the wrong result, so that
I don't make the error in a real program. On the other hand, you
claim to be able to program, but since you don't know what's wrong
with those few lines of code, you really couldn't do any scientific
programming.
>> There are no errors other than the assumption that the computer
>> multiplies numbers correctly.
>
>Maybe you shouldn't make that assumption. (sigh)
Obviously, I didn't or I wouldn't have the example. Do you program
as illogically as you reason?
>> The bessel function J(1)_n is DEFINED by the recursion relation:
>>
>> J(1)_n+1 = 2n J(1)_n - J(1)_n-1
>
>Get lost, i don't like recursion, it leads to errors.
So does programming if you do it poorly.
[...]
>>you simply parroting what you've been told about computers "doing what
>>they claim to do" without any real knowledge?
>
>Where do you think the programs on my website come from, fartbrain.
The microsoft skool of bug writing?
Now include the function jn(n+1, (double)1.0) in the fprintf() statement
and ignore the irrelevant variable, which doesn't do anything.
josX
>josX said some stuff about
Bilge, i see you use slrn, so why don't you post a neat reply and don't
indent/quote things so weird, it makes replying a headache.
>>>[bilge]
>>> No, I just expect you to understand the proofs that went into all of
>>>theorems which determined how a cpu is designed
>>
>>Don't try to pull this crap on me.
>
> So, you're just parotting k&r, huh?
No, i just don't believe in the 'everything is an axiom' school.
These things are experimentally found, and if anybody makes "formal
systems" of common knowledge, then that is derived from what already
existed, and not the other way around. Example: math. Example: logic.
>[...]
>>My complaint is that it is wrong, and that complete understanding is
>>only possible if you include the wrongness of SR in the picture.
>
> Unfortunately, you had to invent things that were wrong in order to
>have a complaint. So far, you haven't actually complained about anything
>that has anything to do with special relativity except your interpretation
>of it.
There isn't a whole lot to interpret about the phraze "lightspeed is
constant for every inertially moving coordinate system", i merely point
out this is impossible using highschool math and diagrams.
>[...]
>>Science and programming are not the same thing. And you are setting up
>>a strawman, as usual.
>
> Neither is science and the first year curriculum at a university,
>but that didn't stop you from making the comparison.
?
>[...]
>>> You don't know enough to know what scientists claim or else you
>>>wouldn't need to resort to claims they don't make in order to meet
>>>your agenda of debunking special relativity.
>>
>>They don't make the claim "the speed of light is the same in a vacuo
>>in all inertial reference frames" ?
>
> That doesn't debunk special relativity.
It does: SR debunks itself.
>>Sure they do, including you. It's called SR. It might later be called
>>"the great insanity".
>
> In the meantime, we'll refer to you as the great insanity.
Undoubtedly. That's because you don't think for yourself.
>>>> Have you found your calculator already? If so, do some calculations
>>>> on moving coordinate systems and the position of a lightbeam in
>>>> them. Make sure you are not so shortsighted to only do computations
>>>> for one direction of light.
>>>
>>> Why is that a problem?
>>
>>It doesn't work out.
>
> Try putting batteries in your calculator.
It works fine, want to see some diagrams and math?
>[...]
>>> Neither do lorentz transforms. The requirement for `c' to be the
>>>speed of light comes from maxwell's equations, which do require
>>>`c' to be the speed of light so that the speed of light has to
>>>be infinity in the galilean transforms, too.
>>
>>You are breaking up.
>
> Then don't write your own screen handling programs. The text looks
>fine to me.
Text and meaning are two different things.
>>> Argue with maxwell's
>>>equations if you don't like that fact. Special realativity doesn't
>>>really care and the speed of light is only an artifact of choosing
>>>`c' so that maxwell's equations are correct.
>>>
>>>If you really think computers do "what they claim" (without really
>>>understanding what it is they claim),
>>
>>computers don't claim, they do, manuals claim.
>
> That contradicts your claim just two posts ago:
>
>Message-ID: <ajmfut$f7g$5...@news1.xs4all.nl>
>
> "Computers do what they claim to do, scientist claim a lot, but
> when it comes to it they are bugs."
I must have been infected by the way you write, it's very hard to
follow.
>>> explain the following reason this program gets the wrong answer
>>> despite being formally correct.
For instance this "explain the following reason this program gets..."
There is no reason following, there is a program following, you should
put it like "explain the reason the following program gets...".
>>Then it must not be formally correct eh?
>
> Formally enough that you don't understand why it gets the wrong answer.
>
>>This is exactly my point: you think it is 'formally correct' while
>>in fact it is wrong. You don't have the possibility of compiling
>>science theories against reality.
>
> That conflicts with reality. Not only do I know those things, but
>I obviously know why the computer gets the wrong result, so that
>I don't make the error in a real program. On the other hand, you
>claim to be able to program, but since you don't know what's wrong
>with those few lines of code, you really couldn't do any scientific
>programming.
I couldn't? Then why did i write a simulation to show an object always
returns to earth for instance, causing some unafiliated poster to think
i was learning programming at some school or whatever ?
This is getting pretty childish here btw.
>>> There are no errors other than the assumption that the computer
>>> multiplies numbers correctly.
>>
>>Maybe you shouldn't make that assumption. (sigh)
>
> Obviously, I didn't or I wouldn't have the example. Do you program
>as illogically as you reason?
>
>>> The bessel function J(1)_n is DEFINED by the recursion relation:
>>>
>>> J(1)_n+1 = 2n J(1)_n - J(1)_n-1
>>
>>Get lost, i don't like recursion, it leads to errors.
>
> So does programming if you do it poorly.
>
>[...]
>>>you simply parroting what you've been told about computers "doing what
>>>they claim to do" without any real knowledge?
>>
>>Where do you think the programs on my website come from, fartbrain.
>
> The microsoft skool of bug writing?
No.
So why is it there?
Get a feeling how you guys treat me ?
Why is it there Bilge, i mean, the #include <math.h> library. It
doesn't do any good, there is no sin or cos or any other math
function called in your program, is there?. Do you think as sloppy
as you program? because from your program that is the impression we
are getting.
BTW, how can i include a function jn(int,double); in the program when
you haven't programmed it, how can i find a bug in your program when
you only post half of it? Doesn't make any sense does it. About as much
sense as the daily crap SRists troll on these groups. And then complain
about my programming, SHEESH :).
% gcc <your program>
/tmp/cchc33AF.o: In function `main':
/tmp/cchc33AF.o(.text+0x78): undefined reference to `jn'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
--
jos
Spaceman
>It does: SR debunks itself.
The paradox twins are the same revs of Earth old WRT the sun.
(using relavity correctly, kills relativity correctly too.
The twins are the same EARTH ages!
and
that is paradox twin debunking 101.
get a clue dufe!
note the WRT the Sun.
use of relativty kills relativities paradoxes
and kills itself.
Spaceman
>The twins are the same EARTH ages!
>and
>that is paradox twin debunking 101.
>get a clue dufe!
That was not meant for JosX of course.
he has more clues than any time travel dupe here does.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:20020818173317...@mb-fi.aol.com...
> >From: agents...@aol.combination (Spaceman)
>
> >The twins are the same EARTH ages!
> >and
> >that is paradox twin debunking 101.
> >get a clue dufe!
>
> That was not meant for JosX of course.
Of course :-))
Assbrains are not supposed to fight each other.
Dirk Vdm
Mike
> >>not work out when it comes to lightspeed, how do you either explain they
> >>produce violation of lightspeed in another coordinate system,
> >
> > Huh? Rephrase the question so that I know precisely what you are asking.
>
> Why do the Lorentz transformations not make light have a constant
> velocity among moving coordinate systems, making the speed of light
> as a constant encounter the exact same impossibilities as under
> normal coordinate systems which move relative to eachother.
>
> How do you explain the impossibilities brought on by the assumption that
> light's speed must be a constant in every coordinate system.
>
JosX, why on earth do you keep claiming that the Lorentz
transformations do not preserve the constancy of c? In case you don't
know the Lorentz transformations are, let me remind you of the Lorentz
velocity transformation. If an object is moving with speed u in one
inertial frame and you are in an inertial frame with parallel axes
moving relative to that frame with speed v, then the speed of the
object measured by you, u' is given by:
u' = (u - v) / (1 - uv / c^2)
why don't you try evaluating that when u = c and see what you get. It
is one thing to argue that the real world doesn't obey the Lorentz
transformations, but to argue that the Lorentz transformations are
internally inconsistent is only a symptom of not having thought deeply
enough about them.
Mike
Bilge
>Why is it there Bilge, i mean, the #include <math.h> library. It
I dunno. Let's find out.
>doesn't do any good, there is no sin or cos or any other math
>function called in your program, is there?. Do you think as sloppy
>as you program? because from your program that is the impression we
>are getting.
>BTW, how can i include a function jn(int,double); in the program when
See preceding paragraph. If that fails to register. Read on.
>you haven't programmed it, how can i find a bug in your program when
>you only post half of it? Doesn't make any sense does it. About as much
>sense as the daily crap SRists troll on these groups. And then complain
>about my programming, SHEESH :).
Sheeesh. Let me guess. You removed the #include <math.h>.
> man 3 jn
>
>% gcc <your program>
>/tmp/cchc33AF.o: In function `main':
>/tmp/cchc33AF.o(.text+0x78): undefined reference to `jn'
>collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
Don't forget the -lm either.
cc -o prog proc.c -lm
josX
>josX wrote:
>>Bilge wrote:
>>>josX wrote:
>>>>Bilge, let me ask you a counterquestion: why don't the Lorentz formula's
>>>>not work out when it comes to lightspeed, how do you either explain they
>>>>produce violation of lightspeed in another coordinate system,
>>>
>>> Huh? Rephrase the question so that I know precisely what you are asking.
>>
>> Why do the Lorentz transformations not make light have a constant
>> velocity among moving coordinate systems, making the speed of light
>> as a constant encounter the exact same impossibilities as under
>> normal coordinate systems which move relative to eachother.
>>
>> How do you explain the impossibilities brought on by the assumption that
>> light's speed must be a constant in every coordinate system.
>>
>
>JosX, why on earth do you keep claiming that the Lorentz
>transformations do not preserve the constancy of c?
Because they don't if you use them in a numerical example.
> In case you don't
>know the Lorentz transformations are
Essentially, they are a factor gamma which contracts and timedilates
a moving coordinate system.
x' = gamma * x
t' = t / gamma
gamma = 1/(1 - v^2/c^2)^.5
(x' and t' are a distance and time interval starting at the origin of
the moving coordinate system).
Reference: 'relativity' authored by Einstein 1916.
> let me remind you of the Lorentz
>velocity transformation. If an object is moving with speed u in one
>inertial frame and you are in an inertial frame with parallel axes
>moving relative to that frame with speed v, then the speed of the
>object measured by you, u' is given by:
>
>u' = (u - v) / (1 - uv / c^2)
>
>why don't you try evaluating that when u = c and see what you get. It
>is one thing to argue that the real world doesn't obey the Lorentz
>transformations, but to argue that the Lorentz transformations are
>internally inconsistent is only a symptom of not having thought deeply
>enough about them.
I am not satisfied with that superficial mathematical investigation.
Try to do some numerical calculations on coordinate systems and the
position of a lightbeam. A frame is nothing other than a coordinate
system (see Einstein 'relativity'), the Lorentz formula's are nothing
else then a change in the moving coordinate system coordinates.
One danger: once you tried it you can no longer fool yourself into
believing SR works. Good luck.
--
jos
josX
>josX said some stuff about
>> man 3 jn
ah, i wasn't aware it's a standard math function, never heard of
these "bessel" functions.
>>% gcc <your program>
>>/tmp/cchc33AF.o: In function `main':
>>/tmp/cchc33AF.o(.text+0x78): undefined reference to `jn'
>>collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
>
> Don't forget the -lm either.
>
> cc -o prog proc.c -lm
Your original has spooled out of my system, if you call that function
correctly and it gives you an error, maybe you should file a bug report.
--
jos
Dirk Van de moortel
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ajqbp9$plg$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
Another perfect demonstration of your ignorance.
You call this "doing your bit for science and society,
concerned about students who are taught the SR
faith and have their ability to clearly think reduced."?
Why don't you do your bit for yourself and read
SpaceTime Physics? It might help you avoiding
exposing yourself as a *complete* fool.
Dirk Vdm
David McAnally
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:ajqbp9$plg$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>> Mike wrote:
>> > In case you don't
>> >know the Lorentz transformations are
>>
>> Essentially, they are a factor gamma which contracts and timedilates
>> a moving coordinate system.
>> x' = gamma * x
>> t' = t / gamma
>> gamma = 1/(1 - v^2/c^2)^.5
>> (x' and t' are a distance and time interval starting at the origin of
>> the moving coordinate system).
>>
>> Reference: 'relativity' authored by Einstein 1916.
>Another perfect demonstration of your ignorance.
Actually, I think it's Eleaticus's fake method of "proof".
David McAnally
---------
josX
Can't i quote Einstein, is Einstein 'meaningless' in SR ?
--
jos
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
>
> Can't i quote Einstein, is Einstein 'meaningless' in SR ?
Einstein's 1905 paper on the Electrodynamics of Moving bodies is version
1.0 of SR. It has been cleaned up, prettied up and clarified many times
since. The basics are the same or course, but the presentation is much
improved. Einstein's pedagogy was far from perfect.
So chopping English translations of Einsteins's sentences does not get
to the heart of the matter.
Almost any modern treatise in Relativity has a better presentation.
Since you are a mathematical feeb I would suggest you get to Special
Relativity by way of Bondi's K-Calculus which minimized the amount of
mathematics and has better diagrams than you have produced thus far.
Or you could read -Relativity from A to B- by Robert Geroch which has
the absolute minimum amount of mathematics, but is very closely
reasoned. If you follow Geroch you will find out exactly why Galilean
Relativity does not work. In particulare velocities add like numbers
which implies that double stars would not appear to be moving in
Keplarian orbits. But they do so appear, hence Galilean relativity is
wrong at speeds near that of light.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
josX wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>
> Essentially, they are a factor gamma which contracts and timedilates
> a moving coordinate system.
> x' = gamma * x
> t' = t / gamma
> gamma = 1/(1 - v^2/c^2)^.5
> (x' and t' are a distance and time interval starting at the origin of
> the moving coordinate system).
The correct Lorentz transform is
x' = gamma*(x - vt)
t' = gamma*(t - vx/c^2).
No wonder you are fucked up.
You have cofused time dilation and length contraction with the
co-ordinate transformations. No wonder you flunked out of school. And I
bet your computer programs are also full of bugs.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Why don't you do your bit for yourself and read
> SpaceTime Physics? It might help you avoiding
> exposing yourself as a *complete* fool.
Josx, C programmer extaordinaire has confuted length contraction and
time dilation with the Lorentz transformation of co-ordinates.
I wonder if his programming technique is as good as his physics.
Would you buy a used C-program from this man?
Bob Kolker
jmfb...@aol.com
In the applet biz where code is based on execution on demand, you'll
never know if you're using his code.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
josX
>josX wrote:
>
>> Can't i quote Einstein, is Einstein 'meaningless' in SR ?
>
>Einstein's 1905 paper on the Electrodynamics of Moving bodies is version
>1.0 of SR. It has been cleaned up, prettied up and clarified many times
>since. The basics are the same or course, but the presentation is much
>improved. Einstein's pedagogy was far from perfect.
Still he is the brain or one of the brains behind it. If there would
ever be a person to be disproved in order to improve science it is
Einstein.
>So chopping English translations of Einsteins's sentences does not get
>to the heart of the matter.
It does. It shows he had a fumble-brain, that is telling enough.
>Almost any modern treatise in Relativity has a better presentation.
Presentation is everything isn't it, if it makes sense or not is
irrelevant. Just have nice pictures and everything will work out.
>Since you are a mathematical feeb I would suggest you get to Special
>Relativity by way of Bondi's K-Calculus which minimized the amount of
>mathematics and has better diagrams than you have produced thus far.
Still afraid of my diagrams i see, good.
>Or you could read -Relativity from A to B- by Robert Geroch which has
>the absolute minimum amount of mathematics, but is very closely
>reasoned. If you follow Geroch you will find out exactly why Galilean
>Relativity does not work. In particulare velocities add like numbers
>which implies that double stars would not appear to be moving in
>Keplarian orbits. But they do so appear, hence Galilean relativity is
>wrong at speeds near that of light.
Cut the crap. That leaves nothing, right?
If the light of double-stars is moving in the medium of interstellar
space which is no perfect vacuum, you have already explained the
double star's appearance classically/normally (that means, in a sensible
way, instead of in an irraitonal way, which really would mean there is no
explanation for something at all yet).
--
jos
josX
I know what you are doing Kolker. You are just producing posts so it
will not be noticed so much i am right, and people standing at the
sidelines will think "oh, but they are still in discussion, so they
must not yet have resolved their issues, let's wait until they do".
BTW you are wrong:
x'= gamma * x
and
t'= t / gamma
come directly from Einstein: they are the amount of lengthcontraction
and timedilation.
x" = gamma*(x - vt)
t" = gamma*(t - vx/c^2).
x" = gamma*x - gamma*vt
ofcourse you have to add the amount the moving coordinate system has moved,
x' = gamma*x is just a definition of your contracted coordinate system
at t=0, t'=0.
If K' moves to the right at v, and you want to know point X as an
X' coordinate, you substract the amount of positive movement of the X'
system (because the K' system has moved towards you, the 0 of K' is
closer now (suppose that X is still on the positive K' axis), and the
remaining distance needs to be /expanded/ to get on the same point in
the K' system as the K system. Again, you should always draw a diagram
of this stuff, then everything gets clear.
KK'
|1^time (sec)
1|
|| Lorentz time
|| dilation and
|| length contraction
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
00 X distance> (*100,000,000 meter)
0-------------1-------------2-------------3-------------4-------------5K
0------------1------------2------------3------------4----K'
If you want to know the location of 'X' as a coordinate of K', it is
perfectly clear what you should do: 3 - 1 = 2 (now you have the uncontracted
coordinate as a distance from the origin of K'), then you need to use
the >1 form of gamma to get to the correct K' coordinate of X, here
at 1/3rd of c gamma = 1/(1-1/9)^.5 = 1.060660172, so K' coordinate =
2 * gamma = 2.121320343 * 100,000,000 meter. It's simple if you draw out
a diagram, otherwise it's hairy.
Formalized (since you kiddies like that so much):
(X - vt) * gamma.
There, i agree with that formula. If you had taken a look at my earlier
diagrams, you would have seen me use it already implicitly.
Your time coordinate is weird.
t" = gamma*(t - vx/c^2).
t" = gamma*t - gamma * vx/c^2
This is total bullshit, time is not dependant upon place. I think you
have perhaps erroneously used the disproven relativity of simultaneity.
Time doesn't depend on place, it's absolute. Sorry, Einstein just fucked
up there, pretty bad too.
Get over it and grow up.
--
jos
Jan C. Bernauer
wrote:
>>From: agents...@aol.combination (Spaceman)
>
>>The twins are the same EARTH ages!
>>and
>>that is paradox twin debunking 101.
>>get a clue dufe!
>
>That was not meant for JosX of course.
>he has more clues than any time travel dupe here does.
More clues than you certainly, he knows that -4 * -4 = 16
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Spaceman
>More clues than you certainly, he knows that -4 * -4 = 16
nope you are wrong simpy because
-x can equal q and prove your math is bad.
Jan C. Bernauer
wrote:
>>From: Jan C. Bernauer taggedfo...@web.de
>
>>More clues than you certainly, he knows that -4 * -4 = 16
>
>nope you are wrong simpy because
>-x can equal q and prove your math is bad.
Show that!
say, q=-4, then -x=q=-4, so x=4.
x^2=4*4=16=(-x)^2=q^2
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Randy Poe
>
> In article <3D5D604D...@atl.lmco.com>, Randy Poe wrote:
> >every point in space. It's absurd from the point of
> >view of EM theory.
>
> Amazing that you use 'absurdity'
"From the point of view of EM theory". It was Einstein's
word, as I recall.
> as an argument to come to SR's absurdity,
The test is how well it does in prediction.
> >Predictions. Hypothesis->prediction->test->verify or falsify.
> >
> >Nobody "buys" the bizarre conclusions on faith. The last
> >part of the puzzle is the crucial one: Does this bizarre stuff
> >actually happen?
>
> With all the babbling you forget the most important thing: hard
> physical evidence. You don't have it, so it's back to square one.
There are nearly 100 years of hard physical evidence. But
you dismiss them with "they're all lying".
>
> >Try to imagine the state of academia circa 1910. Now why
> >the heck do you think anyone would have listened to this
> >stuff? Don't you think everyone, lacking experimental evidence,
> >would have also considered it absurd?
>
> I don't know. Perhaps they really were that stupid, as you claim
> to be. Perhaps they really were that corrupt, how should i know.
Corrupt?
Follow this through. An outsider makes a bizarre new theory
with predictions that are completely counterintuitive. What is
the form of the corruption that leads everyone to eventually
jump on the bandwagon?
Come up with a plausible argument for what form this "corruption"
takes and what they got out of it. And what the accelerator people
get out of pretending the dimensions of the accelerator are
consistent with SR rather than Newton. All those faked blueprints.
Those workmen pretending to pour concrete of one length when
really it was a different one.
> >That's because you don't believe in experiments
>
> Alright, you can fuck off now. I do believe in experiments, and that's
> why i say SR is wrong: because it has no evidence going for it.
There are many experiments, and the FAQ lists a bunch of them.
That's evidence. Those are experiments. You don't believe in them.
Hence "you don't believe in experiments". I believe you have made
the statement that they're all lying.
> >> >Yes, the last refuge. "They're lying. All of them. For the
> >> >last 100 years."
> >>
> >> It's not a refuge, it's a fact.
> >
> >The muon experiments have been done by undergraduates. Are
> >they paid off by the Men in Black before being allowed to
> >do the experiment?
>
> What makes you think the muon proves SR is right. It's just a particle
> which behaves like this, it doesn't proof timedilation because the
> mutual timedilation is an irrational concept.
In your little solipsistic world you have failed to make the
distinction between "I don't understand it" and "It is
irrational". The test of rationality is not YOUR particular
understanding. "Mutual timedilation" is a misinterpretation
of the predictions.
A correct analysis will define the events which constitute the
experiment. Your little etch-a-sketch diagrams don't do that,
they are much too vague.
The fact that you keep cutting and pasting thousands of lines
without ever adding a new thought shows that you are a crank
who isn't really interested in an analysis.
I am getting tired of the editing process, though, and I'm not
going to propagate your etch-a-sketches. Therefore I won't bother
replying to any more of them anymore. Under Crank Rules, "I wore
them down" means "I win". So I guess you win.
- Randy
Robert J. Kolker
Randy Poe wrote:
> A correct analysis will define the events which constitute the
> experiment. Your little etch-a-sketch diagrams don't do that,
> they are much too vague.
Etch-a-sketch is far too kind for his wretched ASCII hen scratches, or
should I say rooster scratches. His diagrams convey no information other
than the deranged state of his brain and his lack of understanding.
Would you buy a used C program from this man?
Bob Kolker
Dirk Van de moortel
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3D61349...@attbi.com...
No. Rather from Tom Potter than from this one ;-)
Dirk Vdm
David Canzi
Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>josX wrote:
>
>> Can't i quote Einstein, is Einstein 'meaningless' in SR ?
>
>Einstein's 1905 paper on the Electrodynamics of Moving bodies is version
>1.0 of SR. It has been cleaned up, prettied up and clarified many times
>since. The basics are the same or course, but the presentation is much
>improved. Einstein's pedagogy was far from perfect.
Einstein also wrote a popular book on relativity for laymen. I read it
many years ago, but don't remember much of it now. It's clear from
chapter 9, which Jos recently posted here, that Einstein had not
introduced the Lorentz transformation equations by that point in the
book. Maybe he never did anywhere in that book.
Any book that claims to explain relativity without using the Lorentz
transformations should be burned.
--
David Canzi If love of money is the root of all evil, marketing
must be the trunk and most of the branches.
Robert J. Kolker
David Canzi wrote:
> In article <3D60E29...@attbi.com>,
> Einstein also wrote a popular book on relativity for laymen. I read it
> many years ago, but don't remember much of it now. It's clear from
> chapter 9, which Jos recently posted here, that Einstein had not
> introduced the Lorentz transformation equations by that point in the
> book. Maybe he never did anywhere in that book.
Lets not jump to extremes. In Robert Geroch's book -Relativity from A to
B- he does not dwell on the co-ordinate transformations. He centers on
the invariant interval. That is the centerpiece. Geroch, with a minimum
of mathermatics (nothing the a 9-th grader could not handle) plus a very
closely reasoned analysis of the deficiency of the Galilean relativity
shows -why- the Lorentz invariant model is necessary.
>
> Any book that claims to explain relativity without using the Lorentz
> transformations should be burned.
The interval is the main thing.
Bob Kolker
Dirk Van de moortel
"David Canzi" <dmc...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message news:ajrf4v$r1b$1...@tabloid.uwaterloo.ca...
> In article <3D60E29...@attbi.com>,
> Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> >josX wrote:
> >
> >> Can't i quote Einstein, is Einstein 'meaningless' in SR ?
> >
> >Einstein's 1905 paper on the Electrodynamics of Moving bodies is version
> >1.0 of SR. It has been cleaned up, prettied up and clarified many times
> >since. The basics are the same or course, but the presentation is much
> >improved. Einstein's pedagogy was far from perfect.
>
> Einstein also wrote a popular book on relativity for laymen. I read it
> many years ago, but don't remember much of it now. It's clear from
> chapter 9, which Jos recently posted here, that Einstein had not
> introduced the Lorentz transformation equations by that point in the
> book. Maybe he never did anywhere in that book.
>
> Any book that claims to explain relativity without using the Lorentz
> transformations should be burned.
Try Taylor's must "Spacetime Physics".
It - reluctantly - has a chapter on the Lorentz Transformation.
You can calculate everything without it. The interval is enouigh.
The LT can make certain calculations and "reasonings" easy, but
you don't really need it,
And, like Bob just recommended, also try Geroch's "General
Relativity from A to B", for more or less the same reasons.
If you allow my paraphrasing you: anyone having something to
say about special relativity without having read both books,
should be burned.
Go get these books. A very good investment.
Dirk Vdm
Edward Green
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
>
> >> Why don't you do your bit for yourself and read
> > SpaceTime Physics? It might help you avoiding
> > exposing yourself as a *complete* fool.
>
>
> Josx, C programmer extaordinaire has confuted length contraction and
> time dilation with the Lorentz transformation of co-ordinates.
I find this a strange comment, because the two sets of ideas are
certainly intimately related.
Bilge
_algorithm_ doesn't work, despite using the correct recursion relation
and a program which executes the algoritm exactly as it's stated. If
you are going to state that physicists simply "parrot" information,
demonstrate that you really understand something about programming
and simply are not "parroting" information. Why is this so difficult
to figure out? Didn't you learn all of the details about floating point
arithmetic before you started programming? Do you really not even
understand the problem?
David Evens
Used, maybe. You see, someone ELSE would have tested it to find out
if it worked, first.
David Evens
Well, Tom Potter IS a salesdroid.
David McAnally
>josX said some stuff about
>Re: University physics textbooks mislead, no proof of SR. to usenet:
> >Bilge wrote:
> >>josX said some stuff about
> ><snip>
> >>> man 3 jn
> >
> >ah, i wasn't aware it's a standard math function, never heard of
> >these "bessel" functions.
> >
> >>>% gcc <your program>
> >>>/tmp/cchc33AF.o: In function `main':
> >>>/tmp/cchc33AF.o(.text+0x78): undefined reference to `jn'
> >>>collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
> >>
> >> Don't forget the -lm either.
> >>
> >> cc -o prog proc.c -lm
> >
> >Your original has spooled out of my system, if you call that function
> >correctly and it gives you an error, maybe you should file a bug report.
>
> The function gives the correct answer. I want you to tell me why the
>_algorithm_ doesn't work, despite using the correct recursion relation
>and a program which executes the algoritm exactly as it's stated.
It's not surprising that jos thinks that because the program gives the
wrong answer, then there is a mistake in the way it is written. As you
commented below, this misconception of jos's shows that he *really*
doesn't know about floating point arithmetic as executed by computers.
Presumably, he thinks that computers executing floating point arithmetic
are capable of doing what they are not capable of doing (hopefully worded
cryptically enough that jos won't pick up what I'm trying to say).
David McAnally
josX
There is something wrong with my installation, i couldn't use long double.
I did recompute the bessel function on my calculator by hand (sigh), and
it gave conflicting results with the original double function. That
could mean it's a rounding error. I also reprogrammed it using gmp.h,
but strangely it gave the same results (not the #math results) at
whichever precision i did it. Perhaps gmp.h is misbehaving or i did
something wrong dunno, but that's why i didn't say it was a rounding
error.
SR is still wrong. If it's wrong at the kiddy level, then it's wrong
at the kiddy level and it should have been noticed immediately. I
can't change history for you, but maybe the future if you just pick
up for once on all the paradoxes and math-conflicts in SR (every
paradox is also a math-paradox btw). A paradox of the level that it
say 2 = 3. HTH. Isn't that the ultimate in mathematical disproof btw?
Then why doesn't the scientific community take action on this.
--
jos
Bilge
Perhaps it's just like programming -- you don't get to understand the
details from an introduction to the subject, but you do learn enough to
make use of the information if you're also smart enough to realize just
knowing the "syntax" isn't going to prevent you from misapplying it. Your
idea of "good programming" was wrapped up in the fact that I had a
#include and a variable that didn't seem necessary rather than the fact
that computers dont simply "do what they claim". Your issue with special
relativity is all wrapped up the semantics you seem bent on misconstruing.
In both your criticism of special relativity and of my short program, you
chose to find fault with something you didn't like rather than find any
actual fault. The person who is merely "parroting" information is the one
who doesn't know how to apply it properly, and instead finds irrelavent
and trivial peripheral issues that conflict with their idea of aesthetics.
If special relativity is wrong, it won't be due to anything you've
brought up, since what you've brought up is your misunderstanding of
special relativity.
>I can't change history for you, but maybe the future if you just pick
>up for once on all the paradoxes and math-conflicts in SR (every
>paradox is also a math-paradox btw). A paradox of the level that it
>say 2 = 3. HTH. Isn't that the ultimate in mathematical disproof btw?
I have no idea what "HTH" means, although I doubt telling me will
facilltate your argument.
>Then why doesn't the scientific community take action on this.
For the same reason, no one is going to pay attention to a bug
report that suggests the different output from the function jn()
and the recursion relation is a bug in anything but the person
reporting it. Try reporting it and see how amicable they would be
if you told them they were merely "parroting" floating point dogma
to avoid dealing with a bug.
josX
You wrote that before i even posted right?
Take notice: i didn't say it was a truncating error because i didn't
positively identify it as such. I said nothing. There goes your whole
argument.
--
jos
Robert J. Kolker
Edward Green wrote:
>
> I find this a strange comment, because the two sets of ideas are
> certainly intimately related.
Related but not identical. Compare the co-ordinate transformations with
the formula involving the delta-x and delta-t.
Bob Kolker
David McAnally
>josX said some stuff about
>Re: University physics textbooks mislead, no proof of SR. to usenet:
> >David McAnally wrote:
> >>ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) writes:
> >>
> >>>josX said some stuff about
> >>>Re: University physics textbooks mislead, no proof of SR. to usenet:
> >>> >Bilge wrote:
> >>> The function gives the correct answer. I want you to tell me why the
> >>>_algorithm_ doesn't work, despite using the correct recursion relation
> >>>and a program which executes the algoritm exactly as it's stated.
> >>
> >>It's not surprising that jos thinks that because the program gives the
> >>wrong answer, then there is a mistake in the way it is written. As you
> >>commented below, this misconception of jos's shows that he *really*
> >>doesn't know about floating point arithmetic as executed by computers.
> >>Presumably, he thinks that computers executing floating point arithmetic
> >>are capable of doing what they are not capable of doing (hopefully worded
> >>cryptically enough that jos won't pick up what I'm trying to say).
> >
> >There is something wrong with my installation, i couldn't use long double.
> >I did recompute the bessel function on my calculator by hand (sigh), and
> >it gave conflicting results with the original double function. That
> >could mean it's a rounding error.
Of course, rounding error alone is not enough to explain why the computed
values of the Bessel functions diverge from the true values so quickly.
The values were devastatingly inaccurate. I daresay that jos couldn't
even conceive of the rest of the reason why the divergence from the true
values is as extreme as it is.
David McAnally
---------
David Evens
There is usually an upper-year undergrad course on this sort of
problem. When I was getting my degree, the one at my school was
called 'numerical methods'. Even my 1st year calculus text had an
appendix on it (Stewart, lovely text, had it in 1st edition).
Bilge
I dare say you are correct. Remarkable how fast that goes wrong. Perhaps
that is why he quietly slinked off and continued his crusade against
special relativity without using his self-described power to think for
himself to help us out on this conundrum.
I'm beginning to suspect that mr. josX is really just a poseur who
parrots what he is told and his objection to special relativity is that he
failed to parrot it as well as he parrots programming knowledge. I thought
I was giving him a break by not asking him to explain how to write a
program to generate bessel functions that works and expected the point
would penetrate his skull. Seeing how that expectation was not met and
hasn't slowed him down from demanding explanations to which he is deaf and
blind, let's ask him to write one for us. He certainly hasn't been tied up
trying understand anything people were gracious enough to provide for him.
How abou it josX? We're all just dishonest science vermin who have
been tricked into thinking special relativity works despite the plethora
of totally obvious flaws you discovered the second you laid on it. Let's
see a working program that hasn't simply been lifted from someone else
(and the explanation for the algorithm used vs the one still awaiting the
explantion for why it doesn't work).