Re: A simplification of Einstein's 1905 paper
glird
> "Hence if x' be taken infinitesimally small",
> @tau/@x' + 1/(c-v) * @tau/@t = @tau/@0 + 1/(c+v)*@tau/@t
>
> And just what is @tau/@x'?
It denotes the difference in clock settings, @tau, of two
clocks of the moving system that are @x' = @(x-vt) apart
as measured by the stationary system K.
> How do the coordinate x' and the coordinate 0 "be taken
> infinitesimally small"?
Contrary to your opinion, Jonnie, there is no
co-ordinate x' in Einstein's equations despite your
defective use of the Greek letter kappa instead of
his letter k to denote the second of the TWO systems in
his equations to there.
> Einstein makes it rather obvious he's never studied calculus and didn't
> know the difference between the distance from 0 to x' and the points
> 0 and x'.
He probably did study differential calculus in high school (as I
did) thus knew that if he set x' infinitely small, as it would be IF
it was a point, then there would be NO distance between clocks A and B
that are an INFINITESIMALLY small (=/= 0) distance apart.
glird
BURT
When energy begins to flow through space it has new motion that can be
detected as weight. If gamma point energy goes up then it was an
increase in flow. If gamma goes down it was a decrease in flow. It
takes energy to decrease energy of flow.
Mitch Raemsch
glird
babbled:
>
>< We establish by definition that Einstein got his knickers in a twist when
he said "we establish by definition that the "time" required by a ray
to
travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to
A,
and claimed
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t + x'/(c+v) + x'/(c-v))] = tau(x',0,0,t
+ x'/(c-v)).
It would have been far easier to write
tau(x',0,0, t+ x'/(c-v)) = tau(0,0,0, t+ x'/(c+v))
and then differentiate that, but then that would make Einstein's silly
spoof
rather too obvious. >
Go ahead and differentiate your equation, if you can.
Btw, John-boy, Einstein's equation is correct but yours is not.
{Although he didn't get his next equation from the long one you wrote
above
nor vice versa-is-wersa, nor did he differentiate anything at all; HIS
next equation inserted what yours left out: the required offset, dtau,
of two moving esynched clocks that are x' = x-vt apart as measured by
the system taken as stationary. Without the offset, dtau/dx', the time
from A to B would NOT equal the time from B to A, as measured by the
moving system whose time, tau, is a function of x and t.
glird
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
It takes energy substance to decrease energy substance as in
deceleration from high flow.
Mitch Raemsch
Don Stockbauer
Why do you make up this gibberish just to attempt to get attention?
Koobee Wublee
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Stop mystifying yourself.
Einstein’s 1905 paper was an attempt on plagiarism of Poincare’s
work. In that paper, you can find tons of mistakes. The center piece
is the Lorentz transform bastardized by Poincare from Larmor’s
transform. In the Lorentz transform, due to mutual time dilation and
the principle of relativity, simultaneity becomes relative. Several
events happening cannot be coherently put together in a precise
timeline agreed by all the observers. Relative simultaneity is not
how the real world works. Given the coherent results of any
interference patterns, the world must obey absolute simultaneity.
Larmor’s transform does not have this problem. All observations must
reference back to the absolute frame of reference. Thus, the
principle of relativity is not generally holding. It does so only at
very low speeds. This always is true for the Voigt transform which
influenced Larmor to build his transform. Both Larmor’s transform and
the Voigt transform satisfy the null results of the MMX.
The Lorentz transform is a special case to Larmor’s transform. In
general, the Lorentz transform does not possibly apply to the real
world. For more information, consult the link below.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c540aaf23412f1e2?hl=en
Dirk Van de moortel
e2ed1d51-e32d-4c7c...@x3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com
> On Mar 29, 8:11 am, Tom Adams <tadams...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> Stop mystifying yourself.
>
> work. In that paper, you can find tons of mistakes. The center piece
> transform. In the Lorentz transform, due to mutual time dilation and
> the principle of relativity, simultaneity becomes relative. Several
> events happening cannot be coherently put together in a precise
> timeline agreed by all the observers. Relative simultaneity is not
> how the real world works. Given the coherent results of any
> interference patterns, the world must obey absolute simultaneity.
>
> reference back to the absolute frame of reference. Thus, the
> principle of relativity is not generally holding. It does so only at
> very low speeds. This always is true for the Voigt transform which
> the Voigt transform satisfy the null results of the MMX.
>
> general, the Lorentz transform does not possibly apply to the real
> world. For more information, consult the link below.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c540aaf23412f1e2?hl=en
For a first class character assassination, consult the link below:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Search/searchresult.html?sw=koobee
Dirk Vdm
Sam Wormley
> Einstein’s 1905 paper was an attempt on plagiarism of Poincare’s
> work. In that paper, you can find tons of mistakes. The center piece
> is the Lorentz transform bastardized by Poincare from Larmor’s
> transform. In the Lorentz transform, due to mutual time dilation and
> the principle of relativity, simultaneity becomes relative. Several
> events happening cannot be coherently put together in a precise
> timeline agreed by all the observers. Relative simultaneity is not
> how the real world works. Given the coherent results of any
> interference patterns, the world must obey absolute simultaneity.
In the 1800s Michael Faraday discovered, or I should say
formalized, electromagnetic induction. Given a coil of
wire and a bar magnet...
F = qE + qv x B
Holding the coil stationary and moving the bar magnet
produced an electric current in the coil. Similarly
holding the bar magnet stationary and moving the coil
also produced an electric current in the coil.
But in the language of electrodynamics of the day the two
cases were distinct independent phenomena that had
completely different explanations.
When Albert Einstein saw that, he said "Look guys, you've
just got to be kidding--Any yo-yo can see that these are
the same thing".
So it was this little experiment that was really the
start of relativity, not the Michelson-Morley
Experiment--not some exotic experiment to detect the
motion of the earth through the aether.
With this simple little phenomenon, that of course
everybody knew about, disturbed nobody else, but Albert
Einstein.
This led him to write a paper that landed on the desks of
Annalen der Physik on 30 June, and would go on to
completely overhaul our understanding of space and time.
Some 30 pages long and containing no references, his
fourth 1905 paper was titled "On the electrodynamics of
moving bodies" (Ann. Phys., Lpz 17 891-921).
spudnik
Michelson and Morley (and their refiners) did
not get this mythical null result!
thus quoth:
One methodological aspect of the paper on magnetism proved defining
for physics to this day. As also for his later work with Wilhelm
Weber, in connection with electrical measurement, Gauss determined
that the measure of magnetic force must be consistent with the units
of measure of mass, length, and time, already in use in other branches
of physics. Owing to the philosophical and historical illiteracy of
most contemporary physics teaching, however, Gauss’s intention is
nearly always misconstrued, to assume that these units are meant to be
self-evident scalar quantities. Rather, as a familiarity with Gauss’s
immediately preceding work on the subject of curvature would show
(and, as was made perfectly explicit in the famous 1854 Habilitation
thesis of his leading student, Bernhard Riemann,4) Gauss had already
introduced a fully relativistic conception into the framework of
experimental physics. His 1828 description of the attempt to use state-
of-the-art surveying techniques to measure the angular defect of a
large terrestrial triangle should make this point evident5: As
elaborated 26 years later by Riemann, it is the principal task of
physics to determine the nature of the non-constant curvature of the
non-Euclidean, multiply-connected geometric manifold which defines the
action of physical processes.
We will shortly see how, in the joint work with Weber on the
determination of the fundamental electrical law, Gauss again
introduces an actually relativistic conception, this time in
connection with the measure of force.
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html
> So it was this little experiment that was really the
> start of relativity, not the Michelson-Morley
> Experiment--not some exotic experiment to detect the
> motion of the earth through the aether.
--les OEuvres!
http://wlym.com
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
The fuel used to accelerate a space ship becomes the mass energy of
that space ship. To slow down or to get rid of motion energy you must
use the extra kinetic mass.
The energy you used to speed up must be mass energy used to slow
down.
Mitch Raemsch
Koobee Wublee
> On 4/2/10 3:15 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Einstein’s 1905 paper was an attempt on plagiarism of Poincare’s
> > work. In that paper, you can find tons of mistakes. The center piece
> > is the Lorentz transform bastardized by Poincare from Larmor’s
> > transform. In the Lorentz transform, due to mutual time dilation and
> > the principle of relativity, simultaneity becomes relative. Several
> > events happening cannot be coherently put together in a precise
> > timeline agreed by all the observers. Relative simultaneity is not
> > how the real world works. Given the coherent results of any
> > interference patterns, the world must obey absolute simultaneity.
>
> In the 1800s Michael Faraday discovered, or I should say
> formalized, electromagnetic induction. Given a coil of
> wire and a bar magnet...
>
> F = qE + qv x B
>
> Holding the coil stationary and moving the bar magnet
> produced an electric current in the coil. Similarly
> holding the bar magnet stationary and moving the coil
> also produced an electric current in the coil.
>
> But in the language of electrodynamics of the day the two
> cases were distinct independent phenomena that had
> completely different explanations.
Complete BullShit!
Faraday’s law deals with change of flux. It does not give a damn
about the coil moving or the magnet moving that results in the change
of flux. <shrug>
> When Albert Einstein saw that, he said "Look guys, you've
> just got to be kidding--Any yo-yo can see that these are
> the same thing".
It is utterly amazing that the Einstein Dingleberries would worship
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar as a god. <shrug>
> So it was this little experiment that was really the
> start of relativity, not the Michelson-Morley
> Experiment--not some exotic experiment to detect the
> motion of the earth through the aether.
Another BullShit!
The MMX was the spark to SR. <shrug>
> With this simple little phenomenon, that of course
> everybody knew about, disturbed nobody else, but Albert
> Einstein.
It only disturbed Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug>
> This led him to write a paper that landed on the desks of
> Annalen der Physik on 30 June, and would go on to
> completely overhaul our understanding of space and time.
> Some 30 pages long and containing no references, his
> fourth 1905 paper was titled "On the electrodynamics of
> moving bodies" (Ann. Phys., Lpz 17 891-921).
That 1905 paper is a piece of crap --- plagiarized shit. It contains
no useful information. It is shrouded with mysticism. <shrug>
Have another cup of the fermented diarrhea of Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar. <salute>
Don Stockbauer
But civilization is advancing at FTL speed even with all these
horrible mistakes Einstein made.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
My God. Science is about at year 400 really. Looking at Galileo and
Einstein.
This idea that we are far ahead is rediculous. Give science a million
years and then ask if it is superior. Civilization is at 10 thousand.
How long have we been building the fossil record?
Not very long.
Mitch Raemsch
Don Stockbauer
You've been so busy posting idiocies here you can't even see it,.
Tom Adams
I like to think that he used the coil and magnet because he felt he
could not use his real inspirations like the fact it was absurd to
think about what you would see if you looked into a mirror while
you and the mirror were traveling at the speed of light. His thought
experiments always seemed to have priority. And with general
relativity it was perhaps all thought experiment perhaps.
>
> This led him to write a paper that landed on the desks of
> Annalen der Physik on 30 June, and would go on to
> completely overhaul our understanding of space and time.
> Some 30 pages long and containing no references,
No formal references, but at least one informal reference:
', together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of
the earth relatively to the ``light medium,"'
Androcles
"Tom Adams" <tada...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a79fa784-5dbc-432a...@30g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
===============================================
Travelling at the speed of light relative to what, Tom?
I've travelled at 2/3 the speed of sound and noticed
nothing strange in the flight attendant's voice, why
should I notice anything strange if I travelled at 2/3
the speed of light? What would be absurd about it?
===============================================
>
> This led him to write a paper that landed on the desks of
> Annalen der Physik on 30 June, and would go on to
> completely overhaul our understanding of space and time.
> Some 30 pages long and containing no references,
No formal references, but at least one informal reference:
', together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of
the earth relatively to the ``light medium,"'
============================================
Galileo overhauled our understanding of relative motion,
Einstein's comment "The observable phenomenon here depends
only on the ... ahem...'relative motion' (excuse my cough)
of the conductor and the magnet." really hasn't overhauled
anything. Einstein denied relative motion applied to light, yet
the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth
relatively to the ``light medium," shows he understood
that the speed of light was relative to something.
His pathetically poor algebra would apply to sound (outside
the plane).
I like to think that Einstein was a dim bulb like Wormley rather
than a deliberate charlatan, but a preponderance of the evidence
points to him being guilty of fraud; what I (or you) like to think
isn't pertinent to the facts.