The true crackpots
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
or those brainwhashed SRists who blindly, and sometimes pathologically,
espouse the SR tenet?
For instance, the physical incoherence of the Lorentz transformation
t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2)
is obvious when using its equivalent form
t' = t/gamma + tau/gamma - tau*gamma, where
tau = (x-vt)/v.
Indeed, t/gamma and tau/gamma both imply that S' moves relatively
to S, whereas tau*gamma implies that S moves relatively to S'.
Clearly, the Lorentz time transformation is physically nonsensical
because S' cannot logically be at rest and *simultaneously* moving
wrt S.
But the SR crackpots, like all doctrinarians, despise logic.
Marcel Luttgens
Androcles
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1126098595.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Androcles.
Dirk Van de moortel
Other than
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TrueCrackpots.html
no comment will be necessary, nor will it, taking into
account the responses you received and decided to
ignore in your previous thread, help.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message news:GGCTe.2676$k22...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
[snip]
> |
> | But the SR crackpots, like all doctrinarians, despise logic.
> |
> | Marcel Luttgens
> Yep.
> Androcles.
Despising logic in action:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
Dirk Vdm
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
80 km/h, the same road, simultaneously, moves at 80 km/h relatively to
the car.
Marcel Luttgens
Dirk Van de moortel
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1126109992.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> A true SR crackpot accepts of course that when a car moves on a road at
> 80 km/h, the same road, simultaneously, moves at 80 km/h relatively to
> the car.
Appalling, isn't it?
Title: What a true SR crackpot accepts:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CrackpotAccept.html
Dirk Vdm
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Marcel Luttgens
Androcles
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1126109992.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
addition
of velocities had never been observed.
I asked him what planet he was from?
I didn't wait for an answer, straight into the killfile he went.
Androcles
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
sci.physics.crackpottery.
Marcel Luttgens
Harry
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1126098595.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
And how logical are you? If you are in a train at standstill at a train
station, and another train next to you starts to move relatively to your
train, then also your train moves relatively to that train - so much that
you may even think that you are leaving the station. Perhaps you never had
that experience?
Harald
Androcles
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1126111899....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| The name of the group sci.physics.relativity should be changed to
| sci.physics.crackpottery.
|
| Marcel Luttgens
Well, people can't read and don't understand it when they do.
This is quite valid:
"It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at
the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries
which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example,
the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The
observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the
conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other
of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the
conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an
electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at
the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet
is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in
the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an
electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding
energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in
the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and
intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.
Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,''
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They
suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of
small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be
valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics
hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will
hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a
postulate."
Ref http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
The ``Principle of Relativity'' is the example and the example is "the
reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor." Crackpots
think it is "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid
for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold
good ", which is the modifier, not the example.
Then the huckster denies it to push his own stupid theory and all hell
breaks loose.
Androcles.
Androcles
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:431f1ce6$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
Relativity, which Einstein denies:
"Thus the law of the parallelogram of velocities is valid according to
our theory only to a first approximation. "
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
That means your train is moving away from the other train faster or
slower than the other train is moving away from you, depending on which
train the velocity of light is 'c' in, because it is c+/-v in the other
train.
How logical ARE you?
I think you are one of the true crackpots, taken in by a huckster.
Androcles.
PD
And you say the road is instead moving at what speed?
PD
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
the road is moving, but not that both are simultaneously moving wrt
each other (which is the fundamental flaw of SR).
Marcel Luttgens
rus...@mdli.com
What could the latter clause mean, according to you, if
not exactly the same thing as the first? You seem to
be very confused.
(Note, the word "simultaneously" is used here in a
*logical* sense, not a temporal one. This is akin to
our using the word "then" in conditional statements
even in cases where we do not claim that the hypothesis
precedes the conclusion in *time*.)
Androcles
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1126121946.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
You are out in the English Channel aboard a Dover to Calais ferry.
I am out in the English Channel aboard a Calais to Dover ferry.
A fog has descended, its late October, and it is midnight. We cannot see
land. You can see me through the mist by the ship's lights, I can see
you. We appear to be getting closer to each other.
Who is moving?
Androcles.
PD
Really? So you suppose that saying something that is in relative motion
is also in absolute motion? How do you know?
By the way, which of these objects (road, car) is not moving?
PD
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1126098595.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
...
> But the SR crackpots, like all doctrinarians, despise logic.
So sad that you decided to join the crackpot brigade. It had
always been a pleasure to read someone that held to aether, yet
didn't insist on calling the "other camp" crackpots. This
behavior is so much like that of a religious zealot, proclaiming
that "my religion is the Truth".
Goodbye.
<plonk>
David A. Smith
Bilge
>sci.physics.crackpottery.
At least if that happened, your posts would be on topic. Maybe you
should try to get the newsgroup created so you and the rest of the
kooks could commiserate without any science getting in the way.
Harry
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
Wrong abd on top of that, completely messed up. But that has been explained
to you by several people, over and over ...
Harald
Harry
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:NPNTe.196297$E95.104373@fed1read01...
Very right. Such people are rarely open to reason.
Harald
Androcles
Phuckwit. He's got more sense than you, that's for sure. You've
described Galilean Relativity, which Einstein denies.
Androcles.
Androcles
Smith open to reason? LOL!
He's just demonstrated how open to reason he is by deliberately hiding!
As for you, tusselader, you demonstrated Galilean Relativity only.
Think you are open to reason?
Let's hear your comments on this:
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html
Androcles.
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
I am out in the English Channel aboard a Calais to Dover ferry.
A fog has descended, its late October, and it is midnight. We cannot
see
land. You can see me through the mist by the ship's lights, I can see
you. We appear to be getting closer to each other.
Who is moving?
You could be moving wrt me, I could be moving wrt to you, or both of us
could be moving relatively to each other.
If I could see land, I could for instance tell that you are moving wrt
to me, because
my ferry is at rest wrt the land.
Let's now go back to the time LT t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2), which can be
written
t' = t/gamma + tau/gamma - tau*gamma, where
tau = (x-vt)/v.
Notice that t/gamma and tau/gamma both imply that S' (for instance,
your ferry)
moves relatively to S (my ferry) , whereas tau*gamma implies that S
moves relatively
to S'. If the LT dealt symmetrically with the two frames, it could be
right, but it is
clearly not the case.
Marcel Luttgens
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Marcel Luttgens
PD
You have a semantic issue, not a physics issue. You have the impression
that "moving relative to" means "moving more than". It does not mean
that.
Relative movement between A and B only means A is receding from B or A
is approaching B, nothing more. And in this clarified sense, if A is
moving relative to B, then B is clearly moving relative to A,
simultaneously.
PD
Androcles
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1126170673....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| You are out in the English Channel aboard a Dover to Calais ferry.
| I am out in the English Channel aboard a Calais to Dover ferry.
| A fog has descended, its late October, and it is midnight. We cannot
| see
| land. You can see me through the mist by the ship's lights, I can see
| you. We appear to be getting closer to each other.
| Who is moving?
|
| You could be moving wrt me, I could be moving wrt to you, or both of
us
| could be moving relatively to each other.
Yes.
I'm not moving relatively to me, we are getting closer, so you must be
moving relatively to me. You are not moving relatively to you, we are
getting closer, so I must be moving relatively to you.
Ergo we are both moving relatively to each other simultaneously.
That's it. Proven. Done.
| If I could see land, I could for instance tell that you are moving wrt
| to me, because
| my ferry is at rest wrt the land.
Not at all. You could be walking along the deck, both ferries are at
rest wrt land.
|
| Let's now go back to the time LT t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2), which can be
| written
| t' = t/gamma + tau/gamma - tau*gamma, where
| tau = (x-vt)/v.
WHAT?
I don't think so, you've got three variables for time there,
t, t' and tau.
You'll have to explain that to me before you go on, I'm lost.
Androcles
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
be moving relatively to the the frame S.
When the frame S is assumed to be moving wrt the frame S', one has to
use the inverse transform.
Or both the direct and the inverse transforms mix the two assumptions
together. This is logically wrong. If you disagree, please explain
why logic is not botched up by the time LT.
Marcel Luttgens
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Unlike SRists, I am not trying to sell pseudo-scientific snake oil.
Marcel Luttgens
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
| Let's now go back to the time LT t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2), which can
be
| written
| t' = t/gamma + tau/gamma - tau*gamma, where
| tau = (x-vt)/v.
"WHAT?
I don't think so, you've got three variables for time there,
t, t' and tau.
You'll have to explain that to me before you go on, I'm lost. "
tau is a function of t. t is thus the only time variable.
But I agree, the LT is such a mess that most people, especially the
SRists, are lost.
Notice that t' = t/gamma + tau/gamma - tau*gamma, where tau = (x-vt)/v,
is mathematically equivalent to t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2), but such form
shows
the logical incoherence of the transform. Look at my response to PD:
Androcles
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1126257041....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
LT?
Oh, you mean Einstein's cuckoo transformations that he tried to blame
Lorentz for.
All Einstein quotations:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
tau = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2)/c^2)
x = vt, the distance S' moves relative to S.
Substitute x for it's value:
tau = (t-v(vt)/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2)/c^2)
Gather terms:
tau = t.(1-v^2/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2)/c^2)
Since A/sqrt(A) = sqrt(A),
tau = t.sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
********** Notice I have not used t' at all. **********
Now I shall use t' correctly.
"If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k
must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time." -- Albert
(snake oil) Einstein.
Here we are using the name k for the system S'.
Einstein is saying there is a length he calls x' that is moving.
Physically, x' can be the length of a train, and it does NOT change
length, it will still be the same tomorrow and the same next week.
Trains do not grow or shrink.
Where the train IS does change, we call that movement.
The train is at position x along the track at time t.
The length of the train is x', and x' = x-vt.
The caboose is 0' = 0-vt, the engine is x' = x-vt.
If the train is 32 cars long and the engine is 80 car-lengths
along the track from the station, the caboose is at 80-32 from
the engine and 48 car-lengths along the track from the station.
If it took 16 seconds for the caboose to move 40 car lengths
then the the caboose moved at 3 car-lengths/second. 3*16 = 48
x' = x-vt = 80-3*16 = 32 as required.
Another second passes, the train has moved to 96,
x' = 96 - 4*16 = 32 as required.
x' is the length of the train.
What is the time on the train?
The answer is t', NOT tau, and t'=t.
So what relates x' to xi and t' to tau?
x' = x-vt
y' = y
z' = z
t' = t
Albert snake-oil Einstein doesn't want you to notice his
sleight-of-hand, so he calls the train k and deliberately says
"system of values x', y, z [, ? ] independent of time"
instead of
"system of values (x', y', z', t') independent of time".
What is NOT stated is as important as what is.
He emphasizes "IT IS CLEAR" (so ist klar).
He does NOT emphasize the switcheroo from t to t' to tau,
he wants to go straight from t to tau.
The purest snake oil in the business.
100 years later and Androcles knows how the trick is done.
Is it just a mistake? Was he stupid?
NO WAY!
Let's back up aways.
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in
empty
space."
Is this valid? It sure looks good.
"In agreement with experience"... well, who can argue with that?
The psychology is here, you'd have to be stupid not to agree
with experience, wouldn't you?
It's snake oil.
The distance moved is AB going and BA coming back.
The SPEED of the light is c, the VELOCITIES are -c and +c.
In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
(BA-AB)/(t'A-tA) = 0 to be a universal constant- the velocity of light
in empty
space.
The speed of light is zero?
I didn't say that, I said the velocity of light is zero by snake oil
definition.
In agreement with MY experience, and yours too if you think about it.
Ok, I asked the question "So what relates x' to xi and t' to tau?"
The answer is "snake oil", but let's examine the snake oil.
Well... I would but you like to snip what I write, that pisses me off,
so I'll leave you to work it out.
Androcles
Androcles
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1126258178.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Androcles wrote:
|
|| Let's now go back to the time LT t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2), which can
| be
|| written
|| t' = t/gamma + tau/gamma - tau*gamma, where
|| tau = (x-vt)/v.
|
|
| "WHAT?
| I don't think so, you've got three variables for time there,
| t, t' and tau.
| You'll have to explain that to me before you go on, I'm lost. "
|
| tau is a function of t.
Nope.
tau is a function of t'
t' is a function of t.
t' = g(t)
tau= f(t')
tau = f(g(t))
| t is thus the only time variable.
Nope.
| But I agree, the LT is such a mess that most people, especially the
| SRists, are lost.
|
| Notice that t' = t/gamma + tau/gamma - tau*gamma, where tau =
(x-vt)/v,
|
| is mathematically equivalent to t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2), but such form
| shows
| the logical incoherence of the transform. Look at my response to PD:
|
| "Sure, but t' = gamma(t-vx/c^2) applies when the frame S' is assumed
to
|
| be moving relatively to the the frame S.
| When the frame S is assumed to be moving wrt the frame S', one has to
| use the inverse transform.
|
| Or both the direct and the inverse transforms mix the two assumptions
| together. This is logically wrong. If you disagree, please explain
| why logic is not botched up by the time LT. "
|
| Marcel Luttgens
PD is an arrogant phuckwit. I've kill-filed the stupid prick.
So is McCullough.
So is Poe.
So is "Uncle Al".
Einstein:
稼tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
Reference:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Proof Poe cannot read:
<1108419383.6...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
"Where in that equation did (c+v) occur?" -- Poe the blind man.
Proof the fuckwit Schwartz cannot read:
<420BF7CE...@hate.spam.net>
From: Uncle Al Uncle...@hate.spam.net
"BTW, you fuck-faced baboon, "(c+v) appears nowhere in the paper, nor
could it."
"Ignorance is educable; stupidity is forever. " - Al Schwartz.
Proof of Draper's arrogance:
<74768d2d.04102...@posting.google.com>
I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.
I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting
to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking
reveals the true interest in the proposal.
While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
"classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
straight, and then make progress from there.
I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
my heart does not.
[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
appear]
PD ( Phuckwit Duck)
Androcles
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2), which can be written
t' = t/gamma + tau/gamma - tau*gamma, where
tau = (x-vt)/v.
Thus tau is clearly a function of t, not of t'. But let rather the
SRists try to sell
their snake oil, instead of helping them to confuse the issue.
Marcel
Androcles
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1126270041.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Androcles,
|
| t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2), which can be written
| t' = t/gamma + tau/gamma - tau*gamma, where
| tau = (x-vt)/v.
You've got three values for time again,
(1) t
(2) t'
(3) tau
You are not adhering to Einstein's derivation.
Androcles
PD
mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> Sure, but t' = gamma(t-vx/c^2) applies when the frame S' is assumed to
> be moving relatively to the the frame S.
> When the frame S is assumed to be moving wrt the frame S', one has to
> use the inverse transform.
Again you have a semantic issue, not a physics issue. As stated before,
when the S' is assumed to be moving relatively to the frame S, then it
is also and simultaneously assumed that the frame S is moving
relatively to the frame S'. When to use which transformation does NOT
depend on which frame is moving relatively to the other. You are not
doing anything *physical* in using one transformation or the other, you
are simply doing the algebra to isolate t' and x' on one side, or
conversely, t and x on one side, depending on what is more convenient.
There is *nothing* more elaborate than that involved, as you will see
if you simply solve the two simultaneous equations.
>
> Or both the direct and the inverse transforms mix the two assumptions
> together. This is logically wrong. If you disagree, please explain
> why logic is not botched up by the time LT.
>
Not logically wrong at all. You just apparently have not done the
algebra.
PD
jem
> PD is an arrogant phuckwit. I've kill-filed the stupid prick.
> So is McCullough.
> So is Poe.
> So is "Uncle Al".
So is everybody who has the gall to tell me I'm wrong.
> Proof of Draper's [PD] arrogance:
> <74768d2d.04102...@posting.google.com>
> I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.
>
> I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
> than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
> that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting
> to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking
> reveals the true interest in the proposal.
>
> While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
> intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
> "classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
> reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
> from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
> someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
> straight, and then make progress from there.
>
> I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
> read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
> confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
> my heart does not.
You need to learn the difference between arrogance and noble ambition.
PD
Which I suppose means Androcles is tired of having his posts whittled
down to obviously ludicrous statements, like 2=1/2, which he
nevertheless feels compelled to stick to. What he fails to recall is
that, on a public forum like this, people can still point out publicly
the idiocy of what he's saying, even if he can't see it anymore. Sort
of like going to a movie theater stark naked, but with a blindfold on
and earplugs in, so as to not see or hear the jeers.
> So is McCullough.
> So is Poe.
> So is "Uncle Al".
May the list grow ever longer...
>
>
> Einstein:
> ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
are mathematically equivalent.
But you didn't respond to my question:
"Or both the direct and the inverse transforms mix the two assumptions
together. This is logically wrong. If you disagree, please explain
why logic is not botched up by the time LT."
Try to use logic, not escapism.
Marcel Luttgens
Androcles
"jem" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:eRfUe.13337$Zp.4600@lakeread04...
| Androcles wrote:
|
| > PD is an arrogant phuckwit. I've kill-filed the stupid prick.
| > So is McCullough.
| > So is Poe.
| > So is "Uncle Al".
|
| So is everybody who has the gall to tell me I'm wrong.
I've given proof, have you?
Nope. You've snipped instead.
Likewise, phuckwit.
Androcles.
Androcles
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1126272812.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I see nothing in your 'question?' to disagree with.
I disagree with you that tau is a function of t, I
disagree with your equation involving t'.
Try to use logic, not escapism.
Androcles.
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
| t' = t/gamma + tau/gamma - tau*gamma, where
| tau = (x-vt)/v.
You've got three values for time again,
(1) t
(2) t'
(3) tau
"You are not adhering to Einstein's derivation.
Androcles."
I certainly don't adhere to it, I *use* it to show its incoherence.
Btw, t' is a function of t and tau, where tau itself is a function of
t.
As we agree on most points, it would be wiser and more enlightening to
let the SRists
themselves demonstrate that the LT is not a logical monstrosity.
Marcel
PD
Look, let's take a more pedestrian example. Let's take a point on a
piece of paper, 5 units away from the origin.
In one coordinate system, the (x,y) coordinates of this point are (3,
4). In another coordinate system, the (x',y') coordinates of the same
point are (0,5). The origin of both coordinate systems are identical.
How can this be? Well, it seems likely that one coordinate system is
rotated with respect to the other, which of course means that the
reverse is true as well. How do I get from one coordinate system to the
other?
x = x'*cos(a) + y*sin(a)
y = -x'*sin(a) + y*cos(a)
If I solve these two equations for x' and y', I get
x' = x*cos(a) - y*sin(a)
y' = x*sin(a) + y*cos(a)
which is of course the inverse transform.
Now, do I have to assert that *only* the (x',y') system is rotated
relatively to (x,y), and NOT that (x,y) is rotated relatively to
(x',y')?
Of course not. Each is rotated relative to the other, simultaneously.
It is not logically wrong to think so. Indeed, when you go through the
process of the algebra to get from one pair of equations to the other,
the principle of algebraic equivalence says that the two pairs of
equations HAVE THE SAME MEANING, only algebraically rearranged. It is
simply not true that going from a transform to the inverse transform
demands a change in physical meaning.
Lest you think this example is not the same thing at all, you should
recall that the LT's can be equivalently written:
x = x'*cosh(a) + t'*sinh(a)
t = -x'*sinh(a) + t'*cosh(a)
or, equivalently,
x' = x*cosh(a) - t*sinh(a)
t' = x*sinh(a) + x*cosh(a)
PD
Androcles
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1126274142.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Why? The phuckwits have their heads up their arses and always will.
I'd consider it wiser to leave them to their own devices and proceed
without them.
Let's find what points we disagee on and iron those out instead.
Let's see what you disagree with here, as a starter. You can create
your own gedanken if you wish.
Try this on the back of an envelope.
Set up cartesian axes, distance vertical and time horizontal
| ^
| x
|
|
|_______________t->
Now draw a diagonal line from the origin to the top of the envelope,
like this.
|^ /
|x /
| /
| /
|/ _____________t->
This line represents a photon, which travels a distance x in time t,
t being the horizontal distance at the top of the envelope at x, the
height.
You did that in school as a teenager, of course, it's not a new idea to
you.
The slope is distance/time and represents velocity.
Now send another photon the same distance, but start it a moment later,
and then another, like this.
|^ / / /
|x / / /
| / / /
| / / /
|/ / / __________t->
All the lines are parallel, so the speed of the photons is constant.
Now IMAGINE (hard for some people to do, I know, but give it a try)
that the speed of light was a tiny bit slower for the next line.
It still goes from the bottom to the top, a distance x, but takes a
little
longer to get there. The slope is less. Hard for me to draw in text,
you have to do it yourself on the back of the envelope, but I'll try.
Unfortunately I have to exaggerate, I have fixed spaces, that produce
aliasing.
|^ / / / /
|x / / / /
| / / / /
| / / / /
|/ / / / __________t->
And the next, but the speed is lower still.
|^ / / / / /
|x / / / / /
| / / / / /
| / / / / /
|/ / / / /__________t->
My text sketch is becoming unclear. Your pencil sketch on the back
of the envelope will be better. I'm going to erase some lines, leaving
only the end points to make my sketch better, but you can keep
your pencilled lines.
|^ / / / / /
|x
|
|
|/ / / / /__________t->
Now add even more lines, but IMAGINE the speed is increasing
gradually, and then once again decreasing.
|^ / / / / / / / /// / / / / / / /
|x
|
|
|/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / _t->
You'll see the photons are bunched together and then spread out,
then they'll bunch together again as the source of photons moves
cyclically faster and then slower and then faster again.
Now imagine... I do ask a lot, I know... that an observer at x
really does see this bunching and spreading. Let's make it easy.
Suppose we are looking at pulses from a pulsar.
Now let's put back the constant speed of light we so dearly believe in.
All the lines have to be parallel again,but we still retain the bunching
and spreading, so the sketch looks like this.
|^ / / / / / / / /// / / / / / / /
|x
|
|
|/ / / / / / / /// / / / / / / / ->t
Notice that the pulsar is no longer emitting pulses at regular intervals
of time.
So... something must have happened to time itself at the pulsar, because
lone pulsars are very regular in their frequency. This is not a lone
pulsar,
it is in orbit, periodically approaching and receding from us.
Hulse and Taylor worked it out, using GR, and received a Nobel
prize for their effort. They KNOW the speed of light is constant,
you see. Einstein said it, so it must be.
Androcles.
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
"Well, it seems likely that one coordinate system is
rotated with respect to the other, which of course means that the
reverse is true as well."
I presume that you are aware that you used the LT itself to prove
its validity. But did you realize that this amounts to a circular
reasoning?
The fact is that the internal mixing up by the LT of two different
reference frames is mathematically correct, but logically tenable
only if one accepts the validity of the concept of space time, in
other words, if one accepts that t' is a function, not only of
t (time), but also of x (position).
This is a mere postulate, which, by definition, is indemonstrable.
Iow, SR is a pure mathematical construct, which has cannot be proved
right. Those who are claiming loudly that SR is certainly physically
correct can rightly be labelled crackpots.
Marcel Luttgens
Androcles
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1126277037.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| PD wrote:
|
| "Well, it seems likely that one coordinate system is
| rotated with respect to the other, which of course means that the
| reverse is true as well."
|
| I presume that you are aware that you used the LT itself to prove
| its validity. But did you realize that this amounts to a circular
| reasoning?
|
| The fact is that the internal mixing up by the LT of two different
| reference frames is mathematically correct,
Time is not a vector, it has no additive inverse. Treating time as
a vector or as a component of a vector is far from mathematically
correct, it is as nonsensical as rotating apples into oranges.
x = apple
t = orange
c = apple/orange
v = 0.6*apple/orange
orangepeel = (orange-(0.6apple/orange)* apple/((apple/orange)^2)/...
Androcles
PD
mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> PD wrote:
>
> "Well, it seems likely that one coordinate system is
> rotated with respect to the other, which of course means that the
> reverse is true as well."
>
> I presume that you are aware that you used the LT itself to prove
> its validity. But did you realize that this amounts to a circular
> reasoning?
I did no such thing. I used an orthogonal rotation in the Euclidean
plane, a sheet of graph paper, for crying out loud. In this case, the
parameter (a) is an *angle of rotation in the plane. Look again.
>
> The fact is that the internal mixing up by the LT of two different
> reference frames is mathematically correct, but logically tenable
> only if one accepts the validity of the concept of space time, in
> other words, if one accepts that t' is a function, not only of
> t (time), but also of x (position).
>
> This is a mere postulate,
On the contrary. The two postulates are listed. In the derivation of
the Lorentz transforms, the *possibility* that t' *may* be a function
of t and x is admitted, but it is not at all given that it *must* be.
Indeed, the Galilean transforms insist that x' is a function of both x
and t, and so it is reasonable to ask why it is that t' cannot be also
*possibly* a function of t and x. In fact, it is a *postulate* of
Galilean transforms that t' can *only* be a function of t and not of t
and x, and perhaps the proper question is whether that is a fair
assumption. The answer to that is simply whether the implications of
Galilean relativity match up to experiment or whether the implications
of Einsteinian relativity match up to experiment.
> which, by definition, is indemonstrable.
> Iow, SR is a pure mathematical construct, which has cannot be proved
> right.
One *never* proves a theory right. One finds experimental evidence that
is either in support of the theory or not in support. In the case of
SR, we have plenty of evidence that says that the *implications* of the
two assumed postulates match up with reality, and therefore the
assumptions can be reasonably taken to be correct.
Dirk Van de moortel
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1126281716....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Very well put.
>
> > which, by definition, is indemonstrable.
> > Iow, SR is a pure mathematical construct, which has cannot be proved
> > right.
>
> One *never* proves a theory right. One finds experimental evidence that
> is either in support of the theory or not in support. In the case of
> SR, we have plenty of evidence that says that the *implications* of the
> two assumed postulates match up with reality, and therefore the
> assumptions can be reasonably taken to be correct.
... or at least to be useful, I would add.
Alas, your remarks don't have any effect on these people.
They have decided that "Physical Theories Must Be Proved",
and, not understanding the meaning of the symbols in the
mathematical expressions, they think they have found a
contradiction. This is what they *all* have in common.
Nothing helps. Everything bounces. Mental block.
Someone should write a book about this, or some psychology
student (with a healthy feeling for science) should make a thesis
about this.
I love your comments.
Dirk Vdm
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Luttgens wrote:
" I presume that you are aware that you used the LT itself
to prove its validity. But did you realize that this amounts
to a circular reasoning? "
PD wrote:
" I did no such thing. I used an orthogonal rotation in
the Euclidean plane, a sheet of graph paper, for crying out
loud. In this case, the parameter (a) is an *angle of
rotation in the plane. Look again."
My comment:
You used an analogy of the LT.
Both x = x'*cos(a) + y*sin(a), y = -x'*sin(a) + y*cos(a), or
x' = x*cos(a) - y*sin(a), y' = x*sin(a) + y*cos(a)
(your rotation)
and x = x'*cosh(a) + t'*sinh(a), t = -x'*sinh(a) + t'*cosh(a), or
x' = x*cosh(a) - t*sinh(a), t' = x*sinh(a) + x*cosh(a)
(the LT)
amounts to a mixing up in a transformation of coordinates or of
reference frames (notice that I never claimed that "going from
a transform to the inverse transform demands a change
in physical meaning").
Such mixing up is particularly clear when using the equivalent
form of the time LT t' = gamma(t-vx/c^2) :
t' = t/gamma + tau/gamma - tau*gamma, where
tau = (x-vt)/v.
Let's remember that t is the time coordinate of some event
as obtainedwhen the frame S is used, and t' is the corresponding
coordinate obtained for the same event when S' is used,
*not forgetting* that the velocity of S' relative to S is v,
and that the "direct" time transform above applies when assuming
that S' is moving wrt S, S being considered at rest
(mutatis mutandi, the "inverse" transform is used when assuming
that S is moving wrt S', but this is secondary here).
Logically, one would expect that the time transform is coherent,
i.e. that it sticks to the premise that led to its derivation,
which is, in the case of the "direct" transform, that S'
is moving wrt S considered as being at rest.
Or, t/gamma and tau/gamma imply that S' moves relatively
to S, whereas tau*gamma implies that S moves relatively to S'.
This is contrary to the premise, meaning that the transform
is logically wrong.
PD also wrote:
"The answer to that is simply whether the implications of
Galilean relativity match up to experiment or whether the
implications of Einsteinian relativity match up to experiment."
"One *never* proves a theory right. One finds experimental
evidence that is either in support of the theory or not
in support. In the case of SR, we have plenty of evidence
that says that the *implications* of the two assumed postulates
match up with reality, and therefore the assumptions can
be reasonably taken to be correct."
What is the plentiful experimental evidence that SR is superior
to LET (let's forget Galilean relativity) :-)
Marcel Luttgens
Androcles
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1126352007.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Aetherialists are crackpots.
Anyone that says "forget Galilean relativity" is by definition a
crackpot.
Androcles.
PD
mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> Luttgens wrote:
>
> " I presume that you are aware that you used the LT itself
> to prove its validity. But did you realize that this amounts
> to a circular reasoning? "
>
> PD wrote:
>
> " I did no such thing. I used an orthogonal rotation in
> the Euclidean plane, a sheet of graph paper, for crying out
> loud. In this case, the parameter (a) is an *angle of
> rotation in the plane. Look again."
>
> My comment:
At this point, it's becoming less clear whether I should respond.
>
> You used an analogy of the LT.
Exactly, a well-known and quite ordinary rotation transformation that
preceded the LT by hundreds of years, that is not based on the LT, and
that should cause you no consternation whatsoever. And if it does, then
we can talk about that. If it does not bother you that x' is rotated
with respect to x AND x is rotated with respect to x' in this
transformation, then the equivalent statement in the LT should not
bother you at all.
>
> Both x = x'*cos(a) + y*sin(a), y = -x'*sin(a) + y*cos(a), or
> x' = x*cos(a) - y*sin(a), y' = x*sin(a) + y*cos(a)
> (your rotation)
>
> and x = x'*cosh(a) + t'*sinh(a), t = -x'*sinh(a) + t'*cosh(a), or
> x' = x*cosh(a) - t*sinh(a), t' = x*sinh(a) + x*cosh(a)
> (the LT)
>
> amounts to a mixing up in a transformation of coordinates or of
> reference frames
Is that true for the rotation as well? Do you find a rotation
transformation to be equally ill-conceived?
> (notice that I never claimed that "going from
> a transform to the inverse transform demands a change
> in physical meaning").
>
> Such mixing up is particularly clear when using the equivalent
> form of the time LT t' = gamma(t-vx/c^2) :
>
> t' = t/gamma + tau/gamma - tau*gamma, where
> tau = (x-vt)/v.
>
> Let's remember that t is the time coordinate of some event
> as obtainedwhen the frame S is used, and t' is the corresponding
> coordinate obtained for the same event when S' is used,
> *not forgetting* that the velocity of S' relative to S is v,
> and that the "direct" time transform above applies when assuming
> that S' is moving wrt S, S being considered at rest
> (mutatis mutandi, the "inverse" transform is used when assuming
> that S is moving wrt S', but this is secondary here).
>
> Logically, one would expect that the time transform is coherent,
> i.e. that it sticks to the premise that led to its derivation,
> which is, in the case of the "direct" transform, that S'
> is moving wrt S considered as being at rest.
>
> Or, t/gamma and tau/gamma imply that S' moves relatively
> to S, whereas tau*gamma implies that S moves relatively to S'.
That is CERTAINLY wrong, and indicates you do not understand the
transformation.
>
> This is contrary to the premise, meaning that the transform
> is logically wrong.
>
>
> PD also wrote:
>
> "The answer to that is simply whether the implications of
> Galilean relativity match up to experiment or whether the
> implications of Einsteinian relativity match up to experiment."
>
> "One *never* proves a theory right. One finds experimental
> evidence that is either in support of the theory or not
> in support. In the case of SR, we have plenty of evidence
> that says that the *implications* of the two assumed postulates
> match up with reality, and therefore the assumptions can
> be reasonably taken to be correct."
>
> What is the plentiful experimental evidence that SR is superior
> to LET (let's forget Galilean relativity) :-)
>
> Marcel Luttgens
Ah, had I known you were talking about LET.... LET theory does not
produce the foundations for QFT that are also very consistent with
experiment. Attempts to incorporate an LET theory into QFT have so far
been unsuccessful.
PD
Dirk Van de moortel
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1126376462.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> > Luttgens wrote:
> >
> > " I presume that you are aware that you used the LT itself
> > to prove its validity. But did you realize that this amounts
> > to a circular reasoning? "
> >
> > PD wrote:
> >
> > " I did no such thing. I used an orthogonal rotation in
> > the Euclidean plane, a sheet of graph paper, for crying out
> > loud. In this case, the parameter (a) is an *angle of
> > rotation in the plane. Look again."
> >
> > My comment:
>
> At this point, it's becoming less clear whether I should respond.
:-)
[snip]
> > Logically, one would expect that the time transform is coherent,
> > i.e. that it sticks to the premise that led to its derivation,
> > which is, in the case of the "direct" transform, that S'
> > is moving wrt S considered as being at rest.
> >
> > Or, t/gamma and tau/gamma imply that S' moves relatively
> > to S, whereas tau*gamma implies that S moves relatively to S'.
>
> That is CERTAINLY wrong, and indicates you do not understand the
> transformation.
If you're interested in Luttgens, try to test his understanding
of coordinates and events - and perhaps of analytic geometry.
During the past years I think I tried just about everything
to help him grasp the concepts. I think he just isn't interested.
Prepare for the worst - but do enjoy :-)
Dirk Vdm
bz
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Let's now go back to the time LT t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2), which can be
> written
> t' = t/gamma + tau/gamma - tau*gamma, where
> tau = (x-vt)/v.
>
Are you SURE that your algebra is correct?
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
bz
news:Xns96CE2D2B7B107WQ...@130.39.198.139:
> mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote in news:1126170673.901271.36790
> @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Let's now go back to the time LT t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2), which can be
>> written
>> t' = t/gamma + tau/gamma - tau*gamma, where
>> tau = (x-vt)/v.
>>
>
> Are you SURE that your algebra is correct?
Ah... I see you are using gamma = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
(AE's 'beta') for your gamma.
Your math is indeed correct.
Dirk Van de moortel
"bz" <bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns96CE300AB60A2WQ...@130.39.198.139...
> bz <bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in
> news:Xns96CE2D2B7B107WQ...@130.39.198.139:
>
> > mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote in news:1126170673.901271.36790
> > @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> >
> >> Let's now go back to the time LT t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2), which can be
> >> written
> >> t' = t/gamma + tau/gamma - tau*gamma, where
> >> tau = (x-vt)/v.
> >>
> >
> > Are you SURE that your algebra is correct?
>
> Ah... I see you are using gamma = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
> (AE's 'beta') for your gamma.
>
> Your math is indeed correct.
Yes, his math is usually correct. He can handle simple algebra.
The problem is that he hasn't got the faintest idea what the
symbols in the equations are supposed to *represent*.
And, worse, going back to the mathematics, as I said, he can
handle the algebra, but he hasn't got a clue about linear algebra
and analytic geometry, which are both absolutely essential for
the kind of problems he seems to be struggling with.
See also this Thomas Smid person who popped up recently
Same condition.
Dirk Vdm
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
> Or, t/gamma and tau/gamma imply that S' moves relatively
> to S, whereas tau*gamma implies that S moves relatively to S'.
"That is CERTAINLY wrong, and indicates you do not understand the
transformation. "
I am sorry for you, because *you* seemingly don't understand the
transfo.
But don't worry, most (all?) SRists don't.
About LET, I would like to add that a theory -like SR- which ignores
that
everything is linked to everything in the whole universe cannot be
right. The problem is to
fix the limit of the observable (our physical) universe. If the range
of gravity is infinite,
we do have problems. But can we (Newton or Einstein) be sure that it
is not finite?
Marcel Luttgens
- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Marcel Luttgens
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Marcel Luttgens
Dirk Van de moortel
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1126455240.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> PD wrote:
> >
> > > Or, t/gamma and tau/gamma imply that S' moves relatively
> > > to S, whereas tau*gamma implies that S moves relatively to S'.
> >
> > "That is CERTAINLY wrong, and indicates you do not understand the
> > transformation. "
>
> I am sorry for you, because *you* seemingly don't understand the
> transfo.
>
> But don't worry, most (all?) SRists don't.
Luttgens' understanding of transformations:
"Why is x' negative? - I can't swallow such crap"
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegativeCrap.html
"and proves that your transformation can't be linear":
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MoronLikeMe.html
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1126455471.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Vdm cannot think by himself. Beware of parrots.
|
| Marcel Luttgens
And you can?
How come you made no answer?
When you have an idle moment, sitting on a plane or waiting
in a bar for your date to show up, try this on the back of an envelope.
| ^
| x
|
|
|_______________t->
you see, as you do. Einstein said it, so it must be.
Anyway, when you have a moment of idleness, think about that
sketch on the back of an envelope...
Androcles.
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
http://groups.google.fr/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/73bc0dd074a20609/8a0aee75653bd1ef?hl=fr#8a0aee75653bd1ef
Marcel Luttgens
Androcles
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1126460827....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| If you want to get an idea about that man (?) called Vdm, just go to
|
http://groups.google.fr/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/73bc0dd074a20609/8a0aee75653bd1ef?hl=fr#8a0aee75653bd1ef
|
| Marcel Luttgens
We know what a dog turd he is. Have known for years. He belongs in a
padded cell next to George Hammond. All you are doing is encouraging him
to generate more noise on the newsgroup.
Androcles
Paul B. Andersen
> The key word is "simultaneously" ! You can consider that the car *or*
> the road is moving, but not that both are simultaneously moving wrt
> each other (which is the fundamental flaw of SR).
>
> Marcel Luttgens
So we should say:
When a road moves at 80 km/h relatively to a car, the same car,
simultaneously, does not move relatively to the road.
Right?
Paul
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
move *simultaneously* wrt each other (let say +80 km/h and -80 km/h),
what is the relative velocity of the car wrt the road (or of the road
wrt the car)? As for me, it is zero.
Marcel
PD
"Moving relatively to" means "approaching" or "receding from", nothing
more. That is, if a car is moving at 80 km/hr relative to a pedestrian,
then it is either approaching the pedestrian or receding from the
pedestrian. Clearly, the pedestrian is either approaching or receding
from the car at the same time. The sign choice is determined once one
makes a coordinate system choice to superimpose on this system.
Semantic failure, not physical failure.
PD
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
I give you $100, and, at the same time, you give me $100.
What is the balance of such operation? Zilch!
Marcel Luttgens
Androcles
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1126618845....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Logical failure made by Marcel.
The two events of you giving me $100 and me receiving $100 are
simultaneous. Me giving you $100 is an impossibility.
Heads I win, tails you lose.:-)
Androcles
PD
Semantic failure. Relative motion is not a transaction, not the swap of
something between two bodies. It is a statement of a symmetric
relation.
A is connected at one end to B.
Therefore B is connected at one end to A.
Geez, Marcel, I don't know how dense you can be about this. (I guess
we're going to see.) Failure to understand the meaning of "moving
relative to" is not a valid critique of special relativity. It is
simply stubborn refusal to acknowledge the meaning of a term.
PD
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
the road:
"My watch is going slower than yours!"
The man on the road replies:
"No, my watch is going slower than yours, because I am the one who is
moving at 80 km/h!"
According to SR, both are right, but according to logic, both are of
course wrong.
Marcel Luttgens
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
PD
No, experiment shows both are right.
Logic would conclude, based on a *postulate* that a clock rates is an
inherently physical property, that this is impossible. The fact that
experiment shows that it IS possible, indicates that the postulate is
in fact incorrect.
Newtonian physics adopts the *postulates* of the invariance of physical
laws in all inertial frames and the absoluteness of simultaneity and
time. It then develops some conclusions from those postulates.
Einsteinian physics adopts the *postulates* of the invariance of
physical laws in all inertial frames and the invariance of the speed of
light, and in so doing abandons the absoluteness of simultaneity and
time. It then develops some conclusions from those postulates.
Experimental comparison of the conclusions from each against reality
then determines which set of postulates are the correct assumptions.
There is *no other way* to determine the truth of the postulates. In
this test, the Einsteinian postulates are not contradicted by
experiment, and the Newtonian postulates are.
PD
Dirk Van de moortel
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1126630384.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
According to SR both express themselves poorly like that.
People who know what the theory is about and who understand
it, might talk like that, but they should not use this kind of language
when talking to confused laymen like you.
The man on the road should say: "According to my measurements
the time between two ticks on your car-clock take longer than a
second as measured on my road-clock."
This is expressed as
dt = gamma dt'
for events satisifying dx' = 0 (i.o.w. on the car-clock).
The man in the car should say: "According to my measurements
the time between two ticks on your road-clock take longer than
a second as measured on my car-clock."
This is expressed as
dt' = gamma dt
for events satisifying dx = 0 (i.o.w. on the road-clock)
Exercise:
You are looking at me between a gap through your fingers.
You say that I am smaller that you are.
I am looking at you between a gap through my fingers.
I say that you are smaller than I am.
We both express ourselves poorly.
Exercise: find a better way for us to express ourselves.
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1126630220....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You've almost got it right, but you left out the car's headlights.
The car with the headlights on has the right time.
The man on the road has to light a candle to keep his watch right.
Androcles
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message news:P1EVe.61260$2n6....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Androfart, in al his blockheaded ignorance, Marcel might be
a tiny bit smarter than you are. And unlike you, he clearly has
at least some control over his emotions.
You better confine yourself to talking to infra-sub-retards like
Seto and Wilson. Compared to them, at least you slightly
glimmer.
Dirk Vdm
PD
Are you trying to help, or have you given up on saying anything with
any correct physical content?
PD
YBM
Could you explain *which* logic (I know none of them) would pretend that
(A is moving relatively to B at X m/s) and (B is moving relatively to A
at X m/s) to be false ?
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Dirk Van de moortel
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1126695385.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Typical Vdm blah blah!
So you can't even do the exercise?
Afraid of making a fool of yourself?
Bad news: that is just what you did again:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LuttgensComment.html
Title: "Luttgens gives an intelligent comment and makes an exercise"
Dirk Vdm
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Luttgens wrote:
"The Srist driving a car moving at 80 km/h says to the SRist sitting on
the road:
"My watch is going slower than yours!"
The man on the road replies:
No, my watch is going slower than yours, because I am the one who is
moving at 80 km/h!"
According to SR, both are right, but according to logic, both are of
course wrong. "
PD wrote:
"No, experiment shows both are right."
Which experiment? Anyhow, I'll demonstrate below that both SRists are
logically wrong.
"Logic would conclude, based on a *postulate* that a clock rates is an
inherently physical property, that this is impossible. The fact that
experiment shows that it IS possible, indicates that the postulate is
in fact incorrect."
Again, which experiment?
"Newtonian physics adopts the *postulates* of the invariance of
physical
laws in all inertial frames and the absoluteness of simultaneity and
time. It then develops some conclusions from those postulates.
Einsteinian physics adopts the *postulates* of the invariance of
physical laws in all inertial frames and the invariance of the speed of
light, and in so doing abandons the absoluteness of simultaneity and
time. It then develops some conclusions from those postulates."
Yes.
"Experimental comparison of the conclusions from each against reality
then determines which set of postulates are the correct assumptions.
There is *no other way* to determine the truth of the postulates. In
this test, the Einsteinian postulates are not contradicted by
experiment, and the Newtonian postulates are. "
The Einsteinian postulates are contradicted by mere logic.
Let's first assume that the car doesn't move, and that the
driver's clock and the clock of the SRist sitting on the road tick
at the same rate.
After a while, the driver starts his car and accelerates till a
constant
velocity v (for instance, 80 km/h).
The driver then claims that his clock goes slower
relatively to the sitting SRist's clock by a factor f=sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
But the sitting SRist replies that, according to SR, he is moving at v
wrt the driver, hence that his clock goes slower by the same factor f
relatively to the driver's clock. What does this logically mean?
Well, the two slowing down effects cancel each other, hence both
clocks keep ticking at the same rate.
Conclusively, both SRists are wrong, and SR is a mere logical
crackpottery.
It is easy to detect the origin of the SR flaw. SR is a primitive
geometrical construct (let's remember that for Einstein, it was
impossible to decide, by looking at the railroad station, if the train
or the station was moving).
Einstein simply ignored the interaction of moving objects with the
physical world. PD, can you imagine a simple experiment, which
proves that the car, and not the road is physically moving?
If you can't, or won't, then I would regretfully think that you
have been SR brainwashed. Otherwise I would expect you to recognize
that SR is physically nonsensical.
Marcel Luttgens
Dirk Van de moortel
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1126701922.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Perhaps yesterday I was wrong after all with my comment to
Androcles. Perhaps you are an even bigger imbecile than he is.
Sometimes it's really hard to tell.
Sorry.
Dirk Vdm
PD
You are under the mistaken illusion that there is a physical process
that is going on that is actually and physically slowing the clocks
down. This is because you don't understand what a length measurement or
a time measurement between two events actually entails.
Lets get back to the matter of simultaneity and what that has to do
with length measurement, and you'll soon see better. Perhaps.
> Conclusively, both SRists are wrong, and SR is a mere logical
> crackpottery.
>
> It is easy to detect the origin of the SR flaw. SR is a primitive
> geometrical construct (let's remember that for Einstein, it was
> impossible to decide, by looking at the railroad station, if the train
> or the station was moving).
And are you moving, right now as you sit there, or not?
>
> Einstein simply ignored the interaction of moving objects with the
> physical world. PD, can you imagine a simple experiment, which
> proves that the car, and not the road is physically moving?
No, I cannot. Please propose such an experiment. As an educational
leg-up for the brainwashed.
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
>> physical world. PD, can you imagine a simple experiment, which
>> proves that the car, and not the road is physically moving?
>No, I cannot. Please propose such an experiment. As an educational
>leg-up for the brainwashed.
PD (it is a little weird to speak to someone called PD), do you think
that the driver weighs more or less when the car is moving?
If you responds that his wheight is independent from the motion of his
car, then you have problems.
Btw, what about the road?
Marcel Luttgens
Androcles
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1126705394.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| >> Einstein simply ignored the interaction of moving objects with the
| >> physical world. PD, can you imagine a simple experiment, which
| >> proves that the car, and not the road is physically moving?
|
| >No, I cannot. Please propose such an experiment. As an educational
| >leg-up for the brainwashed.
|
| PD (it is a little weird to speak to someone called PD),
PD stands for Phuckwit Duck.
"[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
appear]"--PD
Androcles.
PD
Androcles has added me to his killfile, he says, which means that I am
dead to him. Apparently, I either still haunt him and/or he enjoys
speaking to ghosts.
PD
PD
mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> >> Einstein simply ignored the interaction of moving objects with the
> >> physical world. PD, can you imagine a simple experiment, which
> >> proves that the car, and not the road is physically moving?
>
> >No, I cannot. Please propose such an experiment. As an educational
> >leg-up for the brainwashed.
>
> PD (it is a little weird to speak to someone called PD), do you think
> that the driver weighs more or less when the car is moving?
The car has the same invariant mass while it is moving. Why?
Now, if this comes as a surprise to you, perhaps we should talk about
what you mean by "weigh".
> If you responds that his wheight is independent from the motion of his
> car, then you have problems.
Why do I have a problem or problems?
> Btw, what about the road?
What about the road?
BTW, why do you, whenever I ask you a question, do you change the
subject?
PD
Ilja Schmelzer
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> schrieb
> Ah, had I known you were talking about LET.... LET theory does not
> produce the foundations for QFT that are also very consistent with
> experiment. Attempts to incorporate an LET theory into QFT have so far
> been unsuccessful.
Nonsense. To incorporate LET into QFT there is nothing to do. Except to
declare one of the inertial frame to be the preferred frame.
The situation is reverse: There are realistic interpretations of quantum
theory (Bohm, Nelson) which require a preferred frame. Attempts to
incorporate hidden variables into QM which are Lorentz-invariant have
failed, and Bell's theorem shows that this is impossible. To preserve SR you
have to give up classical realism, without any other reason.
Ilja
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in message
news:dg6ars$215$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
little
off the marc, and indeed I must agree with a tusselad on this point.
Androcles.
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
Here is the definition of weight on Earth:
"Weight, measure of the force with which a body is drawn to the
center of the Earth. It is determined by both the mass of what
is weighed and the force of gravity where weighed."
When the car moves at some velocity v wrt the SRist sitting on the
road, it undergoes a negative acceleration a = v^2/R, R being the
Earth radius. Hence, its weight becomes m(g-a), where m is of
course the mass of the car, and g the acceleration of gravity
at the Earth surface.
A simple question for you:
"What is the weight of the car when its velocity is about 7.9 km/s ?"
Remember what I said:
"It is easy to detect the origin of the SR flaw. SR is a primitive
geometrical construct (let's remember that for Einstein, it was
impossible to decide, by looking at the railroad station, if the train
or the station was moving).
Einstein simply ignored the interaction of moving objects with the
physical world. PD, can you imagine a simple experiment, which
proves that the car, and not the road is physically moving?"
Here is such simple experiment, that you were unable to imagine:
Install a spring scale into the car, and hang a mass M on it.
1) The car doesn't move wrt the SRist sitting on the road.
Note the position of the pointer (which corresponds to
a weight Mg).
2) The car is now moving at v wrt the sitting SRist.
Note again the pointer position, you will notice a change,
because the weight of the mass M is now M(g-v^2/R)
Repeat the experiment on the road. Whether the car is moving or not,
the pointer position doesn't change.
So, just by looking at a scale pointer, one can tell that the car, not
the road, is moving.
Hence, Einstein, who claimed that it is impossible to decide, by
looking at the railroad station, if the train or the station is moving,
was plainly wrong. SR, his purely geometrical construct, is
physically untenable. Those SRists, who would still claim that SR is
right, are mere crackpots.
Marcel Luttgens
bz
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Like most SRists, you do have comprehension problems.
>
> Here is the definition of weight on Earth:
>
> "Weight, measure of the force with which a body is drawn to the
> center of the Earth. It is determined by both the mass of what
> is weighed and the force of gravity where weighed."
>
> When the car moves at some velocity v wrt the SRist sitting on the
> road, it undergoes a negative acceleration a = v^2/R, R being the
> Earth radius. Hence, its weight becomes m(g-a), where m is of
> course the mass of the car, and g the acceleration of gravity
> at the Earth surface.
>
> A simple question for you:
>
> "What is the weight of the car when its velocity is about 7.9 km/s ?"
With, or against the spin of the earth?
Masses have less weight at the equator than at the pole because of the
earths spin.
>
> Remember what I said:
>
> "It is easy to detect the origin of the SR flaw. SR is a primitive
> geometrical construct (let's remember that for Einstein, it was
> impossible to decide, by looking at the railroad station, if the train
> or the station was moving).
>
> Einstein simply ignored the interaction of moving objects with the
> physical world. PD, can you imagine a simple experiment, which
> proves that the car, and not the road is physically moving?"
>
> Here is such simple experiment, that you were unable to imagine:
>
> Install a spring scale into the car, and hang a mass M on it.
>
> 1) The car doesn't move wrt the SRist sitting on the road.
> Note the position of the pointer (which corresponds to
> a weight Mg).
> 2) The car is now moving at v wrt the sitting SRist.
> Note again the pointer position, you will notice a change,
> because the weight of the mass M is now M(g-v^2/R)
>
> Repeat the experiment on the road. Whether the car is moving or not,
> the pointer position doesn't change.
>
> So, just by looking at a scale pointer, one can tell that the car, not
> the road, is moving.
>
> Hence, Einstein, who claimed that it is impossible to decide, by
> looking at the railroad station, if the train or the station is moving,
> was plainly wrong. SR, his purely geometrical construct, is
> physically untenable.
SR applies to inertial frames. There are really no such frames available on
the surface of the earth. To some extent ALL theories are 'physically
untenable'.
One needs GR and EEP to understand the things that you are confusing.
SR is right when properly applied to inertial frames.
> Those SRists, who would still claim that SR is
> right, are mere crackpots.
Those who insist on 'physically tenable' theories and those who call those
they disagree with 'crackpots' show a lack of politeness, tolerance and
understanding.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
"SR applies to inertial frames. There are really no such frames
available on
the surface of the earth. To some extent ALL theories are 'physically
untenable'.
One needs GR and EEP to understand the things that you are confusing.
SR is right when properly applied to inertial frames."
I am confusing nothing. Otoh, when you wrote "those who call those
they disagree with 'crackpots' show a lack of politeness, tolerance and
understanding", you are right. Notice that SRists were the first ones
to call
crackpots those who disagree with SR.
You are almost right to tell that "SR applies to inertial frames. There
are
really no such frames available on the surface of the earth."
In fact, there are no such frames available in the whole universe,
meaning
that SR is nowhere applicable. How would you call such a theory, if not
crackpottery.
Marcel Luttgens
PD
mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> Like most SRists, you do have comprehension problems.
>
> Here is the definition of weight on Earth:
>
> "Weight, measure of the force with which a body is drawn to the
> center of the Earth. It is determined by both the mass of what
> is weighed and the force of gravity where weighed."
This does not seem to be a particularly good definition, since the
force of gravity *depends on* the mass of what is weighed.
>
> When the car moves at some velocity v wrt the SRist sitting on the
> road, it undergoes a negative acceleration a = v^2/R, R being the
> Earth radius. Hence, its weight becomes m(g-a), where m is of
> course the mass of the car, and g the acceleration of gravity
> at the Earth surface.
No, the weight does not change, but the *apparent* weight as measured
on a scale will change. The *weight* is not m(g-a). The weight is mg.
The apparent weight is m(g-a).
If you start to go up in an elevator, does the force of gravity
increase during that initial period? And when you decelerate on the
77th floor, does the force of gravity on you decrease? Why would it do
that?
Breaking down F_w = m*g a little further, we find g =
G*M_earth/R_earth^2, following the more general law that
F_w = G*M_earth*m/R_earth^2.
Now, when you accelerate upwards in an elevator, what is it that
momentarily increases: G, M_earth, m, or R_earth?
>
> A simple question for you:
>
> "What is the weight of the car when its velocity is about 7.9 km/s ?"
The *weight* is the same. The *apparent weight* would be different.
>
> Remember what I said:
>
> "It is easy to detect the origin of the SR flaw. SR is a primitive
> geometrical construct (let's remember that for Einstein, it was
> impossible to decide, by looking at the railroad station, if the train
> or the station was moving).
>
> Einstein simply ignored the interaction of moving objects with the
> physical world. PD, can you imagine a simple experiment, which
> proves that the car, and not the road is physically moving?"
>
> Here is such simple experiment, that you were unable to imagine:
>
> Install a spring scale into the car, and hang a mass M on it.
>
> 1) The car doesn't move wrt the SRist sitting on the road.
> Note the position of the pointer (which corresponds to
> a weight Mg).
> 2) The car is now moving at v wrt the sitting SRist.
> Note again the pointer position, you will notice a change,
> because the weight of the mass M is now M(g-v^2/R)
Actually, yes, I should concede this point, because it is indeed
possible to tell the difference between two rotating frames. These are,
however, not inertial frames.
And indeed, in posing the example on earthly trains rather than on
unearthly spaceships, Einstein was glossing over the fact that these
are not *truly* inertial frames but only *approximately* inertial
frames. He thought, and appropriately so, that the distinction was
unimportant to the point being made. What was your point about this?
Kim B
>Like most SRists, you do have comprehension problems.
>
>Here is the definition of weight on Earth:
>
>"Weight, measure of the force with which a body is drawn to the
>center of the Earth. It is determined by both the mass of what
>is weighed and the force of gravity where weighed."
>
>When the car moves at some velocity v wrt the SRist sitting on the
>road, it undergoes a negative acceleration a = v^2/R, R being the
>Earth radius. Hence, its weight becomes m(g-a), where m is of
>course the mass of the car, and g the acceleration of gravity
>at the Earth surface.
>
Actually, if you ride against the Earth's rotation the car will get
heavier until a certain point (where it stands still) and then it will
loose in weight again.
>A simple question for you:
>
>"What is the weight of the car when its velocity is about 7.9 km/s ?"
>
>Remember what I said:
>
>"It is easy to detect the origin of the SR flaw. SR is a primitive
>geometrical construct (let's remember that for Einstein, it was
>impossible to decide, by looking at the railroad station, if the train
>or the station was moving).
>
>Einstein simply ignored the interaction of moving objects with the
>physical world. PD, can you imagine a simple experiment, which
>proves that the car, and not the road is physically moving?"
>
>Here is such simple experiment, that you were unable to imagine:
>
>Install a spring scale into the car, and hang a mass M on it.
>
>1) The car doesn't move wrt the SRist sitting on the road.
> Note the position of the pointer (which corresponds to
> a weight Mg).
>2) The car is now moving at v wrt the sitting SRist.
> Note again the pointer position, you will notice a change,
> because the weight of the mass M is now M(g-v^2/R)
>
>Repeat the experiment on the road. Whether the car is moving or not,
>the pointer position doesn't change.
>
>So, just by looking at a scale pointer, one can tell that the car, not
>the road, is moving.
No, you can easyily see the road is moving by speeding up the car to
it is most heavy. Then the car stand still and the road is moving
(more than 1500 km/h at equator).
Kim
Dirk Van de moortel
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1126787022.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> bz wrote:
>
> > "SR applies to inertial frames. There are really no such frames
> > available on
> > the surface of the earth. To some extent ALL theories are 'physically
> > untenable'.
>
> One needs GR and EEP to understand the things that you are confusing.
>
> SR is right when properly applied to inertial frames."
>
> I am confusing nothing. Otoh, when you wrote "those who call those
> they disagree with 'crackpots' show a lack of politeness, tolerance and
> understanding", you are right. Notice that SRists were the first ones
> to call crackpots those who disagree with SR.
No, Marcel, everyone calls crackpots those who don't understand
something, and then persistently and violently disagree with the
consequences of their misunderstandings.
In this sense, you are a Champion Crackpot, as you have proven
many times on
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:users%2Epandora%2Ebe+luttgens
>
> > You are almost right to tell that "SR applies to inertial frames. There
> > are really no such frames available on the surface of the earth."
>
> In fact, there are no such frames available in the whole universe,
> meaning
> that SR is nowhere applicable. How would you call such a theory, if not
> crackpottery.
Special relativity is a theory about theoretical inertial frames.
In the practical world the theory can be and is used if the
region of space and time is sufficiently small for gravitational
effects not to have a measurable influence on the outcomes
of experiments.
This has been explained to you many times, but you seem to
conveniently forget this. That is a sign of malice.
So, apart from being a champion crackpot, you are a troll
as well.
Dirk Vdm
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
train) is moving or not, simply by looking at the pointer, and that the
road (or the railroad station) never moves wrt the car (or the train).
Contrarily to what Einstein claimed, one cannot assume that the road
(or the station)
moves relatively to the car (or the train). Or, his SR theory is based
on that false assumption. Hence, it is wrong. Morever, *approximate*
inertial frames don't exist.
No frame on Earth or in the universe is "inertial".
Btw, your distinction between *weight* and *apparent weight* only aims
at obfuscating
the conclusion: SR is nowhere applicable in the universe.
I don't think it is useful to further discuss the evidence, especially
with SR crackpots like Vdm.
Marcel Luttgens
PD
mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> It is possible, with a spring scale, to tell whether the car (or the
> train) is moving or not, simply by looking at the pointer, and that the
> road (or the railroad station) never moves wrt the car (or the train).
This is true only on the curved surface of the Earth.
>
> Contrarily to what Einstein claimed, one cannot assume that the road
> (or the station)
> moves relatively to the car (or the train).
Persistent misuse and misunderstanding of the term "moves relatively".
> Or, his SR theory is based
> on that false assumption. Hence, it is wrong. Morever, *approximate*
> inertial frames don't exist.
> No frame on Earth or in the universe is "inertial".
Perhaps you meant to say that "no known physical object is at rest in
an inertial frame". That may be a fair statement.
>
> Btw, your distinction between *weight* and *apparent weight* only aims
> at obfuscating
No, it wasn't. It was aimed at answering a question *you* posed, which
apparently was obfuscating, and you apparently didn't like the answer.
> the conclusion: SR is nowhere applicable in the universe.
>
> I don't think it is useful to further discuss the evidence, especially
> with SR crackpots like Vdm.
Exit, stage left, in a big hurry.
>
> Marcel Luttgens
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
>> It is possible, with a spring scale, to tell whether the car (or the
>> train) is moving or not, simply by looking at the pointer, and that the
>> road (or the railroad station) never moves wrt the car (or the train).
PD wrote:
>This is true only on the curved surface of the Earth.
Meaning that SR is not applicable on spherical celestial objects.
Where else would it be applicable, in your opinion? Imo, nowhere.
If you can imagine a situation where it is valid, please enlighten us.
Marcel Luttgens
Dirk Van de moortel
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1126883444.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Special relativity is a theory about theoretical inertial frames.
In the practical world the theory can be and is used if the
region of space and time is sufficiently small for gravitational
effects not to have a measurable influence on the outcomes
of experiments. That includes labs on the surface of celestial
objects, provided the labs are sufficiently small and/or the
timeframes are sufficiently short.
Bilge
>"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> schrieb
>> Ah, had I known you were talking about LET.... LET theory does not
>> produce the foundations for QFT that are also very consistent with
>> experiment. Attempts to incorporate an LET theory into QFT have so far
>> been unsuccessful.
>
>Nonsense. To incorporate LET into QFT there is nothing to do. Except to
>declare one of the inertial frame to be the preferred frame.
>The situation is reverse: There are realistic interpretations of quantum
>theory (Bohm, Nelson) which require a preferred frame. Attempts to
>incorporate hidden variables into QM which are Lorentz-invariant have
>failed, and Bell's theorem shows that this is impossible. To preserve SR you
>have to give up classical realism, without any other reason.
It's hard to see how attributing an effect to something which
has no classical existence could be said to preserve ``classical
realism.'' The truth is that the only point that realism enters
the picture is that it was defined to mean something specific,
which could have just as easily been called burfl with no loss
of generality. Using burfl would have also sidestepped the irony
in defining realism as something that doesn't describe reality.
PD
Indeed, there is *not one* theory that applies absolutely and
perfectly, because the theory supposes some idealizations that only
hold true approximately in real life. As an example, consider Newtonian
gravity that writes F=GMm/r^2 between two point masses or two
spherically symmetric masses. Well, there are neither point masses nor
perfectly spherically symmetric masses in existence *anywhere*. As
another example, consider Newton's first law which describes the
behavior of an object under no net force. Well, there is not one
instance of any object anywhere that exemplifies that.
Nevertheless, there are many instances that are *sufficiently close* to
being spherically symmetric objects or *sufficiently close* to feeling
no net force, that we can confidently apply Newtonian gravity and the
first law of motion to demonstrate that the laws predict the behavior
well to the degree that the prevailing conditions approximate the
conditions supposed by the theory.
The *identical* statement can be made about special relativity, and the
same results ensue. This is a basic principle of science, let alone
physics, let alone special relativity.
PD
bz
in news:j2UUe.191324$oh6.10...@phobos.telenet-ops.be:
>
> "bz" <bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
> news:Xns96CE300AB60A2WQ...@130.39.198.139...
>> bz <bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in
>> news:Xns96CE2D2B7B107WQ...@130.39.198.139:
>>
>> > mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote in news:1126170673.901271.36790
>> > @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>> >
>> >> Let's now go back to the time LT t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2), which can
>> >> be written
>> >> t' = t/gamma + tau/gamma - tau*gamma, where
>> >> tau = (x-vt)/v.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Are you SURE that your algebra is correct?
>>
>> Ah... I see you are using gamma = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
>> (AE's 'beta') for your gamma.
>>
>> Your math is indeed correct.
>
> Yes, his math is usually correct. He can handle simple algebra.
> The problem is that he hasn't got the faintest idea what the
> symbols in the equations are supposed to *represent*.
> And, worse, going back to the mathematics, as I said, he can
> handle the algebra, but he hasn't got a clue about linear algebra
> and analytic geometry, which are both absolutely essential for
> the kind of problems he seems to be struggling with.
> See also this Thomas Smid person who popped up recently
> Same condition.
>
Like someone else that kept saying that AE was wrong because his "assuming
a linear relationship" was invalid as beta involved a non linear
relationship, missing the fact that beta was a CONSTANT in the particular
equation where it was introduced.
Beta is, of course, LATER found to involve a non linear relationship but
that is not important to its use at the point where the 'linear
relationship' is important.
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
can only be called a piece of idiocy. Newton never confused a falling
apple with a rising Earth.
Marcel Luttgens