Is there cheating in relativity?
sam
Specifically, cheating happened in the textbook Fundamentals of
Physics, 6th edition, published by John Wiley and Sons, jointly
authored by David Halliday, Robert Resnick, and Jearl Walker. On
pages 925 , 926 and 927, the book tried to prove that time is
relative. First it promised clocks would be used to obtain time
intervals; then it dropped clocks and switched to another tool, t = d/
v, thereby the time intervals were obtained. I believe such a switch
constituted cheating. It promised one thing, and then did quite a
different thing.
stric...@gmail.com
Watch the relativists flipping from one inconsistency to the next:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/d6a4f6357ea39352?scoring=d&
PD
Well, first of all, you are reading a very light treatment of
relativity in a survey textbook aimed at freshman. It is designed to
be a gentle introduction, with more emphasis on pedagogy than rigor.
But it is also a chapter that is usually sped through in a freshman
class, and so this chapter also gets less attention from the author
and the editors.
Secondly, this is a *presentation* of the basics of relativity, not
the theory itself. If you find fault in the presentation, this does
not indicate a fault in the theory -- only in the presentation. You
would be right to write the authors and tell them they did a crappy
job of explaining relativity.
If you'd like a better presentation of relativity, which is in fact a
very elegant theory, then I can make some recommendations.
PD
Androcles
"sam" <samw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:262aaaf1-f203-4932...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>I think there is lying or cheating in the theory of relativity.
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
Your answer goes here:
________________________________________________________
Other answers have been:
According to the illiterate crank "Peter Webb"
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
Its two equations.
________________________________________________________
According to the novice mitch sper...@gmail.com (or mitchs perkins)
because +v / -v cancel out?
________________________________________________________
According to the Pillock Shawn Pollock (aka mathkills):
Mikelzon Morrly, whatever.
What Einstein does is basically modify Galilean relativity as follows
X'=A(X-vt)
yes you [Androcles] are an ass (presumably because I asked the question)
________________________________________________________
According to glird the tord:
Both x and x' are in the domain of the function x |-> x' such that x' =
x-vt
________________________________________________________
According to Idiot Ian Parker:
We are not talking about the speed of light here we are talking
classical stability theory.
________________________________________________________
According to Cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
Easy: he did NOT say that.
According to cretin van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he
wrote.
________________________________________________________
According to xxein (not a true dingleberry):
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
________________________________________________________
According to Lamenting Shubert:
Why do you want to know?
________________________________________________________
According to Imbecile Jimmy Black:
" In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology)
is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c."
According to Imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the equation he
wrote.
________________________________________________________
According to Cretin Dork Bruere
I don't give a damn what Einstein wrote.
________________________________________________________
According to Lying Little Shit Matthew Johnson
And even the question is wrong! For he never said any such thing.
This should be painfully obvious from what he _did_ say,
namely, that the vacuum speed of light is a constant of nature,
invariant under all admissable [sic] transformations between
inertial reference frames.
Apparently LLS Matthew Johnson has rewritten Einstein's paper.
A team of scientists working under the direction of researchers from the
University of Sussex have recently discovered that Einstein did not say
"inertial".
According to LLS Matthew Johnson, Einstein did not write the equation he
wrote.
________________________________________________________
According to Chief Wanker Uncle Stooopid Schwartz:
"c+v appears nowhere in the paper, nor could it. [sic]
According to Chief Wanker Uncle Stooopid, Einstein did not write the
equation he wrote.
________________________________________________________
According to Dolt "Spirit of Truth"
that math is correct but WRONG
________________________________________________________
Note: some names may be the aliases of a crank or cranks unknown.
Tom Roberts
> I think there is lying or cheating in the theory of relativity.
I think you are confusing a pedagogical presentation of a complex
subject with advertising copy. Explaining a given situation in multiple
ways is called "teaching", not "a switch [that] constituted cheating".
"Teaching is a series of carefully graded lies that successively explain
each other."
-- attribution lost
Tom Roberts
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:KKTGk.2732$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
> sam wrote:
>> I think there is lying or cheating in the theory of relativity.
>
> I think
You lying shit!
What evidence can you offer that you've ever thought?
Spaceman
> On Oct 7, 10:58 am, sam <samwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think there is lying or cheating in the theory of relativity.
>> Specifically, cheating happened in the textbook Fundamentals of
>> Physics, 6th edition, published by John Wiley and Sons, jointly
>> authored by David Halliday, Robert Resnick, and Jearl Walker. On
>> pages 925 , 926 and 927, the book tried to prove that time is
>> relative. First it promised clocks would be used to obtain time
>> intervals; then it dropped clocks and switched to another tool, t =
>> d/ v, thereby the time intervals were obtained. I believe such a
>> switch constituted cheating. It promised one thing, and then did
>> quite a different thing.
>
> Well, first of all, you are reading a very light treatment of
> relativity in a survey textbook aimed at freshman. It is designed to
> be a gentle introduction, with more emphasis on pedagogy than rigor.
> But it is also a chapter that is usually sped through in a freshman
> class, and so this chapter also gets less attention from the author
> and the editors.
Translation.
That book is the brainwashing drug to get you ready for
the rest of the brainwashing.
If you can actually see how stupid that book is, the drug is not
working and that means your brain is stronger than the stupidity
in that book.
PD
wrote:
Translation:
To hell with books, to hell with what anyone else claims to have
observed.
Make it up as you go along, and if it makes sense to you internally,
then it's right.
It's the only way to prevent brainwashing.
Otherwise you might get brainwashed into believing that -2 x -2 equals
+4 or some fool thing like that.
LOL
PD
stric...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your policy has been to hell with reason, just follow the books. The
books can be wrong PD. While most of what is published may be
correct, it cannot be overgeneralized.
You read books with a critical mind. You listen to theories and
claims with a critical mind. You never disregard reason. That has
been your downfall.
PD
It is not a matter of books. The books only outline the model that has
been checked in experiment. Beginning students, but only beginning
students, are asked to take it on faith that what is presented in the
books has been checked with experiment. However, for those more
interested in physics, the expectation is that immersion in
experimental verification and the documentation surrounding what has
been already checked, is not only required but an essential part of
the activity.
What is also *certain* is that reason is NOT sufficient for
determining truth in science. This is evidenced by the frequent
occurrence of competing models that are *equally* rational, equally
plausible, equally mathematically sound and consistent, and which
plainly disagree both on the model and on the predictions for
observable outcomes in areas not yet explored. In such cases, reason
does not decide. Moreover, the fact that one of the competing models
ends up being disfavored by experimental test does not imply that
there was something wrong logically or mathematically with the model
after all. Reason is just not sufficient. Appeal to observation is
required.
Reason is also confused with intuition. Intuition is a notorious liar
and a cheat, and it is part and parcel with why beginning students
make such egregious errors on the Force-Concept Inventory. Intuition
is based off extrapolation from our senses, where such extrapolation
may or may not be warranted.
Spaceman
Nope not at all.
I say pick up a few books that actually show you how clocks
work and have such facts that when clocks "change rate" they have
malfunctioned in thier proper operation.
Then you can laugh at how stupid people like PD are that can not
grasp a clock malfunction just so he can worship his time changing God.
stric...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
When reason or logic of one type contradicts with reason or logic of
another type, then one of them must not really be reason. This is
seen clearly in the geocentric and heliocentric models, whereby both
were argued as logical. In hindsight, the logic of one could have
been easily exposed as fallacious if it was dissected in more detail.
I am sure the dissection was done, but faith probably intervened along
the way, and those who could not readjust their erroneous logic would
keep insisting on its veracity.
PD
I'd challenge you to do that. There is nothing illogical about either
one. One of them just did a better job of predicting observations than
the other one.
> I am sure the dissection was done, but faith probably intervened along
> the way, and those who could not readjust their erroneous logic would
> keep insisting on its veracity.
Your fundamental premise is that logic will lead invariably to one
unique truth. This is not the case, as many mathematicians and
metaphysicists will assuredly tell you, not to mention scientists.
This is the reason why both theory and experiment are required in
science. Experiment is the only way to arbitrate between two equally
plausible and logically consistent theories.
PD
stric...@gmail.com
I see that somebody still believes in the Geocentric model
PD
No, I didn't say that. There is *evidence* -- experimental evidence --
that the geocentric model is wrong.
You claimed there is something *logically* wrong with the geocentric
model, and that in fact if the geocentric model is wrong, there HAS to
be something logically wrong with it. So what's logically wrong with
it?
PD
stric...@gmail.com
As I said, you need to read on epistemology. You claim a model is
logically correct but goes against experiment. If so, then the
experiment must be an illogical one, which is not correct.
PD
Let's decide on what "illogical" means. If you mean "counter to
experiment", then on that ground the geocentric model is illogical but
relativity is not. If you mean "logically inconsistent in the sense
that the conclusions do not follow from the premises", then the
geocentric model is not illogical as far as I can see (unless you can
demonstrate it) and relativity is not illogical.
PD
sam
> "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Yes, I can offer evidence.
The textbook Fundamentals of Physics told its students that clocks
would be used to obtain time intervals. It said so not once, but more
than once. It repeated such saying on page 925 as well as on page
927. It even used the phrase "reading the clock". But the time
intervals were not read from the clocks, they were obtained from
another tool, the classic equation t = d/v....Don't you accept?
stric...@gmail.com
Occam's razor. Logic favors the simplest model. One can create a
Monkeycentric world view and put in all sorts of exceptions and
special cases and be able to explain all new phenomena, but logic
favors the simpler heliocentric model.
As for relativity, you seem to be having a problem with the equations:
If E1=M1, and E1=E2 and M1=M2, then E2=M2, which proves relativity
illogical as it says E2 <> M2.
Androcles
=========================================
Yes but how is that evidence that the lying shit Roberts ever thought?
I'm agreeing with you, old son, my remark above is directed at Roberts.
Mind you, I'm not impressed by textbooks, that's the tail wagging
the dog. Better to go direct to the horse's arse itself:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Roberts has never read that and if he ever did he wouldn't understand it.
That's why he mumbles "Spacetime Physics" by the cranks that think
they do.
Now, if you really can think and want to know where the cheating is,
answer this:
Dirk Van de moortel
b2060207-c845-4e19...@b30g2000prf.googlegroups.com
[snip]
> Occam's razor. Logic favors the simplest model. One can create a
> Monkeycentric world view and put in all sorts of exceptions and
> special cases and be able to explain all new phenomena, but logic
> favors the simpler heliocentric model.
>
> As for relativity, you seem to be having a problem with the equations:
> If E1=M1, and E1=E2 and M1=M2, then E2=M2, which proves relativity
> illogical as it says E2 <> M2.
You remind me of another logic-idiot, calling itself "Allyou!"
Oh yes, if your kind of logic allows you to use 4 variables
E1, M1, E2 and M2 for 8 carefully defined quantities, then
the theory is certainly illogical.
As was explained to you in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e6df3b52be1e7860 ,
as a reply to
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DisprovenForGood.html ,
1) before M is set in motion:
Tick/tock on clock at rest in E:
rate w.r.t E-clock: dte/dte = 1
rate w.r.t M-clock: dte/dtm = 1
Tick/tock on clock at rest in M:
rate w.r.t E-clock: dtm/dte = 1
rate w.r.t M-clock: dtm/dtm = 1
2) after M is set in motion:
Tick/tock on clock at rest in E:
rate w.r.t E-clock: dte/dte = 1
rate w.r.t M-clock: dte/dtm = 1/gamma (was 1 before)
Tick/tock on clock at rest in M:
rate w.r.t E-clock: dtm/dte = 1/gamma (was 1 before)
rate w.r.t M-clock: dtm/dtm = 1
Condensing these 8 quantities into 4 variables is called fumbling,
or cheating, and in "Allyou!r" case, probably both.
Dirk Vdm
Strich.9
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 11:29 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Condensing these 8 quantities into 4 variables is called fumbling,
Creating new variables where there is no need, is called cheating, or
maybe just stupidity. But let me humor this idiot. Justify those
extra variables, without prematurely invoking the same conclusion you
want to prove.
You don't assume, what you want to prove. That is basic. Didn't your
granny teach you anything?
Dirk Van de moortel
Strich.9
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Strich.9 <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> 6ac30964-003a-487c-b981-1ed996ddc...@f77g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
Ahh, the brain sputters. Sorry. Your sneaking in of the extra
variables without due process is denied.
PD
Sorry, Occam's razor appears nowhere in a symbolic logic class.
Perhaps you need to read up on logic.
> One can create a
> Monkeycentric world view and put in all sorts of exceptions and
> special cases and be able to explain all new phenomena, but logic
> favors the simpler heliocentric model.
Now you are confusing logic with intuition and commonsense. Intuition
and commonsense is the application of general rules of thumb
extrapolated from limited experience to reach out into areas of little
or no experience. It is a survival adaptation of the human mind, and
its better-than-even success is why it is an evolutionary advantage,
but it has no bearing on logic.
>
> As for relativity, you seem to be having a problem with the equations:
> If E1=M1, and E1=E2 and M1=M2, then E2=M2, which proves relativity
> illogical as it says E2 <> M2.- Hide quoted text -
Your E1, E2, M1, M2 apply only in an individual frame. For example
E2(in frame E) =/= E2(in frame M). You're going to have to change your
notation to reflect the frames those rates apply in.
PD