A Challenge to mathematical physicists
glird
answer, if you can, the third and most significant one.
In Einstein's 1905 equation tau = a(t - vx'/{c^2 - v^2}), where did
the "a" come from and what does it signify; and IF it IS "a function
phi{v) at present unknown" WHAT is its value if, as he later
said, "phi(v) = 1"?
glird
Dono.
Lebau, old fart
tau = a(t - vx'/{c^2 - v^2})
is the general solution to the partial differential equation:
@tau/@x'+v/(c^2-v^2)*@tau/@t=0
"a" is a parameter, imbecile.
You have been molfing the same paper for the last 30 years and you
still didn't get past the first paragraph.
glird
> On Mar 11, 8:05 am, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > < In the next sentence, answer the first two questions and then answer, if you can, the third and most significant one.
In Einstein's 1905 equation tau = a(t - vx'/{c^2 - v^2}), where did
the "a" come from and what does it signify; and IF it IS "a function
phi{v) at present unknown" WHAT is its value if, as he later said,
"phi(v) = 1"? >
>
tau = a(t - vx'/{c^2 - v^2})
is the general solution to the partial differential equation:
@tau/@x'+v/(c^2-v^2)*@tau/@t=0
"a" is a parameter, imbecile. >
Your ignorance is showing, stinkpot.
Having failed to answer the three questions, you tried to hide your
idiocy by making believe that "'a' is a parameter" answers the
questions "where did the "a" come from? and what does it signify>"
Care to try again, Dononutin?
Dono.
> On Mar 11, 11:29 am, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:> On Mar 11, 8:05 am, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > < In the next sentence, answer the first two questions and then answer, if you can, the third and most significant one.
>
> In Einstein's 1905 equation tau = a(t - vx'/{c^2 - v^2}), where did
> the "a" come from and what does it signify; and IF it IS "a function
> phi{v) at present unknown" WHAT is its value if, as he later said,
> "phi(v) = 1"? >
>
> >< Lebau, old fart
>
> tau = a(t - vx'/{c^2 - v^2})
> is the general solution to the partial differential equation:
> @tau/@x'+v/(c^2-v^2)*@tau/@t=0
> "a" is a parameter, imbecile. >
>
You still the same imbecile, Lebau old fart?
waldofj
actually a is not a parameter, it's called a function of integration.
It's one of the things you get when you solve a partial differential
equation. It's very similar to the constant of integration you get
when you anti-differentiate a function. And, just as with anti-
differentiation, you have to use other aspects of the problem you're
solving to determine what it is. In this case Einstein uses the
symmetry between the forward and reverse transforms to show it is just
1.
Androcles
"waldofj" <wal...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3c324314-73fb-4d66...@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
==============================================
Bwahahahahahahaha!
Einstein hadn't clue what symmetry is and neither do you!
v = dx/dt, so upsilon = d(xi)/d(tau)
Prove upsilon = v and show phi(upsilon) = phi(-v), shithead!
xxein
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein: There is no such real term as a function of intergration. It
is an 'additional' term introduced to get the right answer for the
differentiation we measure.
waldofj
so, some else that doesn't know mutli-variable calculus
what a surprise!
Dono.
I am fully aware, thank you.
waldofj
does!
Dono.
There are a few more, PD, Paul Anderson, Tom Roberts, R. Yablon, to
name a few.
There are also a lot of posers who couldn't calculate anything even if
their lives depended on it. You give one of the posers a problem to
solve, you see them bouncing off the walls :-)
There a
Daryl McCullough
glird says...
If you are talking about the English translation of Einstein's paper,
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
I think that it was not written clearly. He starts off saying that
the time tau in one frame is related to the time t
in the other frame through a linear relationship:
tau = a (t - vx'/(c^2 - v^2))
where a is a function of v, which he calls phi(v). But later on,
he reuses the symbol phi(v) to mean something different. In light
of later developments, it turns out that a is related to the phi(v)
that's introduced later by:
a = phi(v)/beta
where beta = 1/square-root(1-(v/c)^2)
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
glird
wrote:
> In article <49a4b84b-471b-4a0e-9a41-819ca094f...@19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>, glird says...
>
> > In the next sentence, answer the first two questions and then
> >answer, if you can, the third and most significant one.
> > In Einstein's 1905 equation tau = a(t - vx'/{c^2 - v^2}), where did
> >the "a" come from and what does it signify; and IF it IS "a function
> >phi{v) at present unknown" WHAT is its value if, as he later
> >said, "phi(v) = 1"?
>
tau = a(t - vx'/(c^2 - v^2))
where a is a function of v, which he calls phi(v). But later on, he
reuses the symbol phi(v) to mean something different. In light of
later developments, it turns out that a is related to the phi(v)
that's introduced later by:
a = phi(v)/beta
where beta = 1/square-root(1-(v/c)^2)
Thank you for a reasonable reply, Daryl.
Although you didn't answer any of the three questions, we agree on
several things:
1. E's paper was not written clearly.
a. That's because he revised it at the last pre-publication moment.
2. He did indicate that "the time tau in one frame is related to the
time t in the other frame through a linear relationship: tau = a(t -
vx'/(c^2 - v^2))".
a. But he did NOT start off by saying that! He put that equation in
at the
last second, without having derived it at all.
3. He did change the meaning of _a_ at the last second.
a. That's because he got the symbol phi(v) from Poincare's LTE,
without understanding what it denotes.
b. It's also because of a reason which will be revealed in the third
and final message of The Missing SymboL
Indeed, the equation
tau = a(t - vx'/(c^2 - v^2))
is the place where the almost invisible bimp in his logic appears!
(A 'bimp" is Peter Sellers' word for a "bump". Many times, a person
starts an accepted conclusion by going from step 1 through step 8 by
a
series of well reasoned steps, each of which is a consequence of the
prior one(s). Then, having gotten stuck at step 8-9, he goes to the
conclusion and starts to reason backward from there. He gets all the
way back to item 9 and
gets stuck there. Without any logical reason for doing so, and many
times
without even realizing that he did it, he INVENTS a "connection"
between steps
8 and 9. Everyone checks out his "proof" and agrees that it is valid.
But it is NOT1 It isn't a proof at all. It is based on the bimp.)
A few year ago i submitted A Flower for Einstein to Lulu. Them i
submitted a series of corrected files, in each of which I presented a
series of revised steps to the subject-equation, with the steps
enumerated on the side. Then one day I went to the latest file in
order to continue tracing the logic of Einstein's steps from eqs 3 to
4 to 5 to 6 to 7 (the subject-equation); and the only thing left on
the portion I was analyzing was equation 7 itself!! It took but a
moment to see that he didn't get eq 7
from the rest of his steps, which he got FROM eq 7,
And that's when i realized that eq 7 ws the finely polished bimp in
his logic; and then, step by step, i found many other bimps and bumps
in his attempt to "derive" the equations that became the heart of STR.
And now I have to leave because my wife is blowing the car horn for
me to HURRY UP!! so g-bye now.
glird
spudnik
the paper may have been mistranslated, as well.
> 1. E's paper was not written clearly.
> a. That's because he revised it at the last pre-publication moment.
thus:
get with the program; Einstein wasn't perfect, and
Minkowski, like anyone else, put his pants on ...
one lightcone at a a time!
thus:
that should be, "Fossilized Fuel (TM)" and *sic*;
it is simply a trade-name of oilolgical mythology
(sediments piling-up in the ocean create enough pressure
to create oil ... even though this happens, continuously,
since time immemorial).
thus:
read _The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric Lerner,
student of the late Johannes Alfven (I have not).
thus:
what a bunch of silliness. the only real question is,
how much energy was in "de planes,"
compared to the rather small amount that is required
for a "controlled demo?" that is to say,
were the planes not adequate bombs?
thus:
the "official" report (NIST) does have interesting stuff in it
-- I linked to it via the link to Wiki --
for example, "Figure 9.3. Minimum heating of reinforced heavy columns
to initiate global collapse," which shows "temperature range
for a 50% redicution in steel strength," as opposed
to the typical desideratum of "melting" that is promoted.
thus:
please, don't bother
with the pro-hominemania of your supposed status
as a practicing physicist and/or trained netdoggy!
proabably most of the interpretation of the EPR "paradox"
results,
a la Alain Aspect et al, is due to the ideal of a photon,
in assinging all of the energy of the wave-front
as a "mass" (electron-voltage, say) of a particle, whence
the wave-energy was somehow collected
by the photoeletrical device. here are two ways to get over this: a)
just consider the practice of audio quantization, the phonon; b)
show how the photoelectrical device is actually tuned
to absorb a particular frequency of light.
so, is the "phonon" just one cycle of the period of the sound,
and
like-wise, is the photon just one cycle of the frequency?
--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/
--The Ides of March Are Coming:
Pro-Impeachment Democrat
Wins Nomination in Texas!
http://larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2010/lar_pac/100303kesha_victory.html