 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / October 2005The Cat is out of the bag
The SRians now admitted that the OWLS or TWLS have nver been measured. Why are they keep on lying that the speed of light is measured to be c by all inertial observers?? Ken Seto > The SRians now admitted that the OWLS or TWLS have nver been measured. > Why > are they keep on lying that the speed of light is measured to be c by all > inertial observers?? I can't speak for creatures from planet SR but the statement doen't not appear untrue. An inertial observer can not be party to any forces so must be co-moving with any nearby matter. The relation: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif from: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html *seems* well confirmed for this condition. You think maybe the standard's labs are pushing rubber rulers off on an unsuspecting public ? Sue... > Ken Seto  SignatureUsing Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ | > The SRians now admitted that the OWLS or TWLS have nver been measured. | > Why [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | I can't speak for creatures from planet SR but the statement | doen't not appear untrue. Wow! a TRIPLE negative. "the statement does not appear true." Androcles. > | On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:43:20 -0400, kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Wow! a TRIPLE negative. > "the statement does not appear true." LOL! I just knew you'd be the one the catch that. Wait'll ya see my skating videos where I am doing a triple clutz. :o) Sue... > Androcles. > > | On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:43:20 -0400, kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Sue... Rod: It's free right? I mean, where do I get it?! Hey Androcles, A-man, share with your old friend, err me anyway, c'mon buddy, whatayasay, huh? :) SignatureRod Ryker... The intricacies of nature is man's cannon fodder. > > Androcles. | > > | On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:43:20 -0400, kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> | > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] | Hey Androcles, A-man, share with your old | friend, err me anyway, c'mon buddy, whatayasay, huh? :) Dang, the bag is out of the cat now. Androcles | > > Androcles. > > > | On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:43:20 -0400, kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > -- > Rod Ryker... Not a problem. I have a two year supply of insults for anyone that thinks they can study the isotropy_of_nothing 'till a printing press appears in the bell-hop's pocket to explain imagined electromagnetic phoney-omena and the extra dollar. :o) Sue... > The intricacies of nature is man's cannon fodder. > > > > Androcles. > > | On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:43:20 -0400, kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > > Androcles. Sue: reasoning with Androcles or Kenseto is like reasoning with a barrel. -will- | > > | On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:43:20 -0400, kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> | > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] | Sue: reasoning with Androcles or Kenseto is like | reasoning with a barrel. -will- Only a barrel would listen to your brand of "reason", but you are welcome to try and convince me this star blows up twice in three months. Observation: http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif Explanation: http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3) Seto might believe you, he's an ectoplasmist. Androcles. | > | On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:43:20 -0400, kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> | > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] | Wait'll ya see my skating videos where I am | doing a triple clutz. :o) Is that a Tonya Harding half-axle across the kneecaps? http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4637276.pdf | Sue... | | > Androcles. > > The SRians now admitted that the OWLS or TWLS have nver been measured. > > Why [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > An inertial observer can not be party to any forces so must be > co-moving with any nearby matter. A fascinating statement .................... > The relation: > http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif from: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > The SRians now admitted that the OWLS or TWLS have nver been measured. YOU HAVE TO READ WHAT I WRITE. There have been *LOTS* of measurements of TWLS. just not any since 1983. There have been many measurements of OWLS, just not any with good enough resolution to distinguish the difference between c and c+v, where v is the orbital speed of the earth around the sun. Rather than wasting your time attempting to discuss physics, you would be well advised to spend some time LEARNING HOW TO READ. Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com > > The SRians now admitted that the OWLS or TWLS have nver been measured. > > YOU HAVE TO READ WHAT I WRITE. > > There have been *LOTS* of measurements of TWLS. just not any since 1983. So why don't you give us some references where TWLS was measured and what were the procedure used. Specifically how did they measure the distance between the reflecting mirror and the clock?? > There have been many measurements of OWLS, just not any with good enough > resolution to distinguish the difference between c and c+v, where v is > the orbital speed of the earth around the sun. Why don't you give us the references where OWLS was measured? What procedure were used to measure the distance between the two clocks. BTW your assertion that "just not any with good enough resolution to distinguish the difference between c and c+v, where v is the orbital speed of the earth around the sun." is baloney. The orbital speed of the earth got nothing to do with the speed of light. The SR postulate said so. Ken Seto > > The SRians now admitted that the OWLS or TWLS have nver been measured. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com xxein: Thank you, Tom. Even if you do not explain why this is significant, I trust that you have a 'newer' approach to understanding physics than you had before. You are progressing. And so should we all. In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote on Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:43:20 GMT <cRQ6f.153435$lI5.115461@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>: > The SRians now admitted that the OWLS or TWLS have nver been measured. Why > are they keep on lying that the speed of light is measured to be c by all > inertial observers?? > > Ken Seto It is not measured as c. It is *defined* as c. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how we should properly measure OWLS? Or would you prefer TWLS? Especially since there's an inherent lightspeed dependency in the standard ruler? After all, those copper atoms (to pick an element at random; one could just as easily use iron, iron-carbon mix [steel], carbon-hydrogen-oxygen mix [wood], or any other material sufficiently solid, really) bind to each other using metallic or covalent bonds (or, if one's weird enough to postulate a ruler made of a crystal of sodium chloride or similar such material, ionic), which are from electrons... So now, the question is an obvious one: how does one properly define, say, a meter? Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. > In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto > <kenseto@erinet.com> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > #191, ewill3@earthlink.net > It's still legal to go .sigless. xxein: I congratulate you. Now figure out the reality of it all. In sci.physics.relativity, xxein@bellsouth.net <xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote on 23 Oct 2005 18:02:06 -0700 <1130113198.971076.232360@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: >> In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto >> <kenseto@erinet.com> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > xxein: I congratulate you. Now figure out the reality of it all. I was asking Kenseto. However, you are also free to "correctly" define a reference-length. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. > In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto > <kenseto@erinet.com> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > So now, the question is an obvious one: how does one properly > define, say, a meter? Use the metal bar in the Paris Standard lab? In any case that's what we use everyday to measure length and speed of anything. So why do we have to have a special rubeer ruler (light-second ) to measure length for light. Ken Seto > In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto > <kenseto@erinet.com> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It is not measured as c. It is *defined* as c. The speed of light is not *defined* as c. c is defined as the speed of light. The speed of light is what it is. c is expressed in terms of the ratio of given units of distance to given units of time. And so the question remains how that ratio can be established *if* OWLS or TWLS have never been measured. > Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how we should properly > measure OWLS? Or would you prefer TWLS? Why is that his responsibility in the context of his question? The issue isn't whether or not he knows how to perform such measurements, but rather, what he perceives as the inconsistency of establishing the speed of light at a specific ratio when it's never been measured. > Especially since there's an inherent lightspeed dependency > in the standard ruler? After all, those copper atoms (to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So now, the question is an obvious one: how does one properly > define, say, a meter? It seems to me that's the crux of the problem. With no way to properly define a meter or a second, how does one establish the speed of light? > > In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto > > <kenseto@erinet.com> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > of time. And so the question remains how that ratio can be established *if* > OWLS or TWLS have never been measured. Nice one: "Musings on the speed of light:" http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Musings.html Long time no see. Did they kick you out from misc.taxes again? Did you put too many followups to alt.morons again? Ha, by the way: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html "The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom." http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html "The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second" Dirk Vdm >>>>The SRians now admitted that the OWLS or TWLS have nver been measured. Why >>>>are they keep on lying that the speed of light is measured to be c by all [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Did they kick you out from misc.taxes again? > Did you put too many followups to alt.morons again? So you're the guy responsible for sending him to annoy everybody in m.taxes. > Ha, by the way: > http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Dirk Vdm I've only read half of this. It should be good for you guys over in S.P.R to argue about: http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/hoax.htm SignatureLEGAL DISCLAIMER Anybody answering this post consents to having their replies posted on my website. (Not that I need your consent since you post to public domain.) I am not a Tax Lawyer, Nor do I play Dan Evans on the internet. I am not a Certified Public Accountant, Nor do I play Paul Thomas on the internet. I am not an Enrolled Agent, Nor do I play Richard Macdonald on the internet. That's because I'm not an IRS sycophant. Cold Contacts via this page ONLY: http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/contact.html LOL! Two peas in a pod. "Self-respect must be about the most silly thing a person could have." -- van Moortel. And your obsession continues.......... > Ha, by the way: > http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in > vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second" By the way, asswhipe, *I'm* not the one claiming that those two quantities have not been defined or that they cannot be properly measured. Can't you read, a.shole? What's the matter? Did I hit a nerve by outing you as the bitter, pathetic, old man you really are? Is that why you've got to follow me around Usenet? LOL! You've proven me right. "AllYou!" <Idaman@conversent.net> wrote in > Can't you read, a.shole? No, actually I can't. But if you would stop typing a.shole, and start using English, that would be a great help. It is always refreshing to find some of your old friends, right "AllY'all"? SignaturePaul Thomas, CPA paulthomascpapc@bellsouth.net LOL! I address a post to an a.shole, and you respond! BwaaaaaaaaHaaaaaaaaaaaHaaaaaaaaaaaaa > "AllYou!" <Idaman@conversent.net> wrote in >> Can't you read, a.shole? > > No, actually I can't. | "AllYou!" <Idaman@conversent.net> wrote in | > Can't you read, a.shole? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | | It is always refreshing to find some of your old friends, right "AllY'all"? If 'All You' ever learned correct English, who would he write to? None of his friends would understand him... Androcles. > | "AllYou!" <Idaman@conversent.net> wrote in > | > Can't you read, a.shole? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > None of his friends would understand him... > Androcles. If we are discussing the correct usage of English, I might point out that it should be "... to whom would he write?" and "None of his friends could understand him." | > | "AllYou!" <Idaman@conversent.net> wrote in | > | > Can't you read, a.shole? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] | that it should be "... to whom would he write?" and "None of his friends | could understand him." 'All You' won't understand that. Androcles. > | If we are discussing the correct usage of English, I might point out > | that it should be "... to whom would he write?" and "None of his [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 'All You' won't understand that. > Androcles. Apparently, neither did you, fucktard. > The SRians now admitted that the OWLS or TWLS have nver been measured. Why > are they keep on lying that the speed of light is measured to be c by all > inertial observers?? > > Ken Seto Which SRian is that? PD In sci.physics.relativity, PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote on 25 Oct 2005 08:31:32 -0700 <1130254292.134065.306420@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: >> The SRians now admitted that the OWLS or TWLS have nver been measured. Why >> are they keep on lying that the speed of light is measured to be c by all [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Which SRian is that? Kenseto is slightly confused again, but it might have been me. :-) In any event, scientists have measured TWLS a fair number of times (correctly or incorrectly, I'm not sure which -- probably a mixture of both, from the high-precision measurements performed by various modern scientific endeavors using lasers and mirrors to the almost laughable (apocryphal?) attempt by Galileo using shutter-lanterns and an assistant on a hillside somewhere in Italy), and OWLS has been shown to be largely isotropic (I don't know the error but it's small). It is possible but extremely unlikely for TWLS to be c and OWLS to be not equal to c; the main issue would be the time it takes for light to reflect off the mirror -- and that time can be easily measured by moving the mirror (or using a different mirror of identical make) and re-performing the TWLS. A c'=c+v hypothesis has many problems -- starting with various astronomical observations. Of course Androcles trots out Aql1493 on a regular basis as though it means something. I'm not sure what it means, but doubt that it's proof of much without a lot more substantiating information from other star systems -- one of which would be the double neutron star system J0737-3039, which among other things confirms general relativity very nicely. There's also Algol (Beta Persei) and Delta Cephei to explain properly. SR does the job reasonably well in both cases, AFAIK. And then there's the lab experiments, LHC design specifications, and GPS design specifications. I'm not seeing any particular inconsistency regarding c'=c here. > PD Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. > In sci.physics.relativity, PD > <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > in Italy), and OWLS has been shown to be largely isotropic > (I don't know the error but it's small). So what were the results by all these measurements????? > It is possible > but extremely unlikely for TWLS to be c and OWLS to be not > equal to c; the main issue would be the time it takes for > light to reflect off the mirror -- and that time can be > easily measured by moving the mirror (or using a different > mirror of identical make) and re-performing the TWLS. Wrong. It is possible for OWLS to be isotropic for any specific distance but the value of OWLS can vary with distance of separation of the two synchronized clcoks. That's the reason why SRians refused to measure OWLS directly. They just measure the isotropy of OWLS and assume that OWLS equal to TWLS by isotropy. Ken Seto > A c'=c+v hypothesis has many problems -- starting with > various astronomical observations. Of course Androcles [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > #191, ewill3@earthlink.net > It's still legal to go .sigless. > In sci.physics.relativity, PD > <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > but extremely unlikely for TWLS to be c and OWLS to be not > equal to c; It is impossible for TWLS to be c AND for OWLS to be isotropic AND for OWLS to not be equal to c. > the main issue would be the time it takes for > light to reflect off the mirror -- and that time can be > easily measured by moving the mirror (or using a different > mirror of identical make) and re-performing the TWLS. Or comparing two extant experiments with different baselines, and plotting the value of time of flight vs lever arm, the intercept of that linear plot being the mirror delay. I've already pointed that out to Seto, but he doesn't seem to grasp the notion. > A c'=c+v hypothesis has many problems -- starting with > various astronomical observations. Of course Androcles [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > > PD > > In sci.physics.relativity, PD > > <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > It is impossible for TWLS to be c AND for OWLS to be isotropic AND for > OWLS to not be equal to c. It is only impossible for an indoctrinated SRian. OWLS can be isotropic for any specfic distance but the value of OWLS can be different than c. Much like I walk isotropically at speed v1 and than I walk isotropically at speed v2. Ken Seto > > the main issue would be the time it takes for > > light to reflect off the mirror -- and that time can be [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > #191, ewill3@earthlink.net > > It's still legal to go .sigless. > > > In sci.physics.relativity, PD > > > <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > like I walk isotropically at speed v1 and than I walk isotropically at speed > v2. Isotropic means "same regardless of direction". What this means is that if you have a light path from A to B and then back from B to A, then if the speed of light is v1 from A to B, then it is v1 from B to A, those two paths differing only in direction. I think perhaps you are confused what "isotropic" means. > Ken Seto > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > > #191, ewill3@earthlink.net > > > It's still legal to go .sigless. No I am not confused above what isotropic means. I am saying that isropy can have two or more different velocities. This means that both OWLS and TWLS can be istropic but have different velocities. > No I am not confused above what isotropic means. I am saying that > isropy can have two or more different velocities. This means that both > OWLS and TWLS can be istropic but have different velocities. Isotropy = "same regardless of direction" If light goes from A to B and returns from B to A, the only difference between those two paths is direction. If OWLS is isotropic, this means that the speed going from B to A is the same as the speed from A to B, those two paths differing only in direction. One cannot assume that the lightspeed from B to A is *different* than the lightspeed from A to B and at the same time hold that OWLS is isotropic. If the length from A to B is L, then the length from B to A is L. OWLS = L/(tAB) or OWLS = L/(tBA) By presumption of isotropy, we mean that L/(tAB)=OWLS=L/(tBA) >From this we deduce that tAB=tBA, and actually we can make this deduction without actually measuring tAB or tBA at all. >From this we know, *without measuring them individually* that tAB + tBA = 2(tAB) as long as, an in every case that, OWLS is isotropic. On the other hand, we calculate TWLS as TWLS = 2L/(tAB+tBA). Note that in this calculation, we have already done the fitting necessary to remove any delay associated with reflection. Without having to measure tAB and tBA individually, I already know that TWLS = 2L/2(tAB) = L/(tAB) = OWLS. Recap: *without* measuring tAB and tBA individually, and *only* assuming isotropy of OWLS, I can deduce that it *must* be the case that OWLS = TWLS. You'll note that *nowhere* in this did I presume any numerical value for L/tAB or L/tBA or 2L/(tAB+tBA), and in particular I did not use the value of c anywhere. PD > > No I am not confused above what isotropic means. I am saying that > > isropy can have two or more different velocities. This means that both [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > PD You are using *algebra* to explain something to Seto? This might turn out to be problematic: http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SquareDiff.html http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSquareRoot.html Ahem - enjoy ;-) Dirk Vdm Your arguementr is based on the following bogus reasonings: 1. You assumed that there is no absolute motion in the vertical direction. 2. You assumed that the leading edge of the light ray will return to the source location. BTW this assumption violates the UP. Why? Because it would mean that you would knoe the velocity and the location of the light ray simultaneously. 3. You assumed that 2(AB) does not include the delay time at the mirror. The only way to know if TWLS=OWLS is by measuring them directrlyas I described in my pdf file. I don't see why you SRians simply refused to do such measurements. Is it because you are afraid that the answers are not what you predicted???? Ken Seto > Your arguementr is based on the following bogus reasonings: > 1. You assumed that there is no absolute motion in the vertical > direction. You'll note in the above that I make no reference whatsoever to direction. I only have two points A and B, and I'm discussing only whether isotropy demands that OWLS=TWLS. > 2. You assumed that the leading edge of the light ray will return to > the source location. BTW this assumption violates the UP. Why? Because > it would mean that you would knoe the velocity and the location of the > light ray simultaneously. This is a bogus cop-out. It would apply to your OWLS measurement as well as it would to a TWLS measurement. > 3. You assumed that 2(AB) does not include the delay time at the > mirror. That's right, because I'm assuming I've already applied the technique I described to remove the mirror delay time from the TWLS measured times. I described that just a short time ago. Welcome all, to Short Attention Span Theater. > The only way to know if TWLS=OWLS is by measuring them directrlyas I > described in my pdf file. I don't see why you SRians simply refused to > do such measurements. Is it because you are afraid that the answers are > not what you predicted???? No, it is because isotropy of OWLS demands that, once the mirror delay has been removed by experimental analysis, then TWLS=OWLS. This does not demand that OWLS=c, only that TWLS=OWLS. Fortunately, TWLS has been amply measured to be c. Therefore, OWLS is known to be c. The reason why SRians refuse to do a direct OWLS measurement is because it is fiscally irresponsible to measure something that has already been measured. PD | > Your arguementr is based on the following bogus reasonings: | > 1. You assumed that there is no absolute motion in the vertical [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | direction. I only have two points A and B, and I'm discussing only | whether isotropy demands that OWLS=TWLS. isotropic: exhibiting properties (as velocity of light transmission) with the same values when measured along axes in all directions <an isotropic crystal> velocity: the rate of change of position along a straight line with respect to time : the derivative of position with respect to time speed: magnitude of a velocity irrespective of direction TWLS = change of position = (dx + (-dx))/dt = 0 OWLS = change of position = dx/dt = c TWLS <> OWLS. | > 2. You assumed that the leading edge of the light ray will return to | > the source location. BTW this assumption violates the UP. Why? Because [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] | No, it is because isotropy of OWLS demands that, once the mirror delay | has been removed by experimental analysis, then TWLS=OWLS. f.cking idiot, welcome to the zero attention span toilet-treasure house and the piles of poopoo. | This does | not demand that OWLS=c, only that TWLS=OWLS. Which it does not. | Fortunately, TWLS has been | amply measured to be c. Nonsense, TWLS is always zero. | Therefore, OWLS is known to be c. Stooopid imbecile, OWLS = c+v where v is the velocity of A wrt B. Proof: "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..." Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ | The reason why SRians refuse to do a | direct OWLS measurement is because it is fiscally irresponsible to | measure something that has already been measured. You can't afford to do it right, Phuckwit Duck? It's fiscally irresponsible to waste 100 years on complete bullshit! Androcles. Androcles. > | > Your arguementr is based on the following bogus reasonings: > | > 1. You assumed that there is no absolute motion in the vertical [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > OWLS = change of position = dx/dt = c > TWLS <> OWLS. Oh, well done, Androcles, you've just demonstrated that Indy500 drivers have a speed of zero for each lap they complete. I suppose this is proof that mathematics is dangerous in the hands of those who have no grip on physics. PD In sci.physics.relativity, PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote on 29 Oct 2005 05:30:16 -0700 <1130589015.976931.88940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>: >> | > Your arguementr is based on the following bogus reasonings: >> | > 1. You assumed that there is no absolute motion in the vertical [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Oh, well done, Androcles, you've just demonstrated that Indy500 drivers > have a speed of zero for each lap they complete. There's a fair number of issues here, not the least of which is the differentiation of vector (velocity) versus scalar (speed). However, a NASCAR or Indy racer completing 100-500 laps around his favorite track (pick one: Indianapolis, Talledega, Atlanta, Sears Point), will indeed have an average velocity of zero, which is a little odd considering the effort to drive those cars around the track, with accelerations nearing 2.5-3 g, if memory serves, not to mention fuel consumption, tire wear, and horrific crashes, some of which result in driver's deaths. (Dale Earnhart -- #3 -- was not the first, though he's arguably the most well known.) Mathematically, one might represent this as: average velocity = integral(t=0,t_end) v dt speed of average velocity = || integral(t=0,t_end) v dt || average speed = integral(t=0,t_end) ||v|| dt (This is admittedly somewhat Newtonian, though v(t) might be construed as being observed by a stationary observer, who knows to compensate for the delay of light between x(t) and himself. Since the velocity is at most 3 * 10^-7 c the errors are minimal for NASCAR examples.) If one envisions a perfectly circular 5 km racetrack, and a NASCAR racer running around it at 90 m/s, one can parameterize things without too much difficulty, letting x and y be in meters and t in seconds. The origin is at the center of the track, for simplicity. x(t) = (2500/pi)*cos(2*pi*(90/5000)*t) y(t) = (2500/pi)*sin(2*pi*(90/5000)*t) The velocity of course is tangent to the track: vx(t) = -(2500/pi)*(2*pi*(90/5000))*sin(2*pi*(90/5000)*t) vy(t) = (2500/pi)*(2*pi*(90/5000))*cos(2*pi*(90/5000)*t) with acceleration directed inward, lest the car fly into the stands -- which *has* happened, resulting in the deaths of spectators: vx(t) = -(2500/pi)*(2*pi*(90/5000))^2*cos(2*pi*(90/5000)*t) vy(t) = -(2500/pi)*(2*pi*(90/5000))^2*sin(2*pi*(90/5000)*t) d(t) is a funny animal generally -- mostly because one can't take ||(x(t),y(t))|| to compute it, but instead has to do a path integral. As per our assumptions it's simply 90 * t. (We set t = 0 at the point the cars are up to speed and cross the start/finish line, beginning the race.) v(t) = ||(vx(t),vy(t))|| is a constant on this track (we assume no pit stops), and is of course 90 m/s. a(t) = ||(ax(t),ay(t))||, and for this example is about 10.18 m/s/s, or just over 1 'g' force (1 g = 9.805 m/s/s). It is also constant. Were a NASCAR auto to be equipped appropriately, the driver could just read a book on this circular track. (That wouldn't work on a real oval, of course! :-) ) 500 laps on this race course would take 7 3/4 hours; that's probably way over limit on endurance (races last about 3 hours at most). However, after this race is done, the winning driver, fatigued but happy, can walk back to the winner's circle from where he started his car (somewhere on pit road) -- though in most races he drives the car to a podium. 7 3/4 hours to walk that distance? Dude, I could have used a Segway...erm...why are all my teeth on the ground? :-) This also applies to light as well; a TWLS measures the lightspeed along its entire path but its dx is zero if the source is near enough to the "finish line". Fortunately for light, it never gets tired (claims by certain creationists notwithstanding) but light is also extremely gullible; it'll go wherever one aims the mirror. And of course the Earth has an average velocity of zero as it completes its 940 billion kilometer journey around Sol. For various reasons related to GR, we feel no motion; the season changing is because of the varied tilt of one's position relative to the Sun. We can observe the motion, however, using parallax of nearby stars and the motion of the other planets (planet = planetei, wanderer). However, the theoretical centripetal acceleration is easily calculated, assuming a circular orbit (which it isn't exactly but never mind). It turns out to be (1.501 * 10^11 m) * (2*pi/(86400*365.2425 s))^2 = 5.95 * 10^-3 m/s/s The force of the moon on a 1 kg test mass 3.85 * 10^8 m away would be (6.674215*10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2) * 7.35*10^22 kg * 1 kg) / (3.85 * 10^8 m)^2 = 3.309 * 10^-5 kg-m/s/s And the force of the sun on a 1 kg test mass 1 AU away would be (6.674215*10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2) * 1.9862*10^30 kg * 1 kg) / (1.501 * 10^11 m)^2 = 5.884 * 10^-3 kg-m/s/s which should be exactly equal to the centripetal calculation, but at least it's close. I'll have to start a new thread on the tides but it should be fairly clear now. > I suppose this is proof that mathematics is dangerous in the hands of > those who have no grip on physics. Androcles is a slippery one, though. :-) > PD Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. > In sci.physics.relativity, PD > <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > favorite track (pick one: Indianapolis, Talledega, Atlanta, > Sears Point), will indeed have an average velocity of zero, TWLS stands for "Two Way Light Speed", not for "Two Way Light Velocity". Dirk Vdm In sci.physics.relativity, Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote on Sat, 29 Oct 2005 16:01:13 GMT <d1N8f.34606$p02.1634369@phobos.telenet-ops.be>: >> In sci.physics.relativity, PD >> <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > TWLS stands for "Two Way Light Speed", not for "Two > Way Light Velocity". A point, indeed, a point. :-) Of course, the main issues with TWLS vs OWLS appear to be: [1] If OWLS != TLWS one has the minor algebraic problem of trying to figure out why. It's a variant of the headwind/tailwind problem. [2] There is strong evidence of OWLS isotropy. If there's no wind and no reflection time OWLS = TWLS. [3] Nobody's all that interested in light velocity, mostly because light have attributes of a spherical wavefront in a lot of applications. In a way, QM and SR are already merged if one is careful to use spherical light wavefronts -- which turn out to be Lorentz-invariant. [4] The time it takes to reflect off the mirror in a TWLS experiment turns out to be a non-issue. Presumably, this is generally treated as instantaneous and would probably be on the order of 3 * 10^-19 second anyway. After all, a mirror is primarily metal -- silver being traditionally coated onto glass, but there are a host of others -- and the width of a single atom is around 100 pm or 10^-10 m; light will take about 3.3 * 10^-19 seconds to traverse that distance. Since most experiments are done (at least) on a 10m long lab bench, which would take light about 33 ns or 3.3 * 10^-8 s to traverse, the error is on the order of 10 parts per trillion, and can be easily compensated for by using another length and subtracting. Of course a position error of 1 mm would result in an error of 33 ps anyway. > Dirk Vdm Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. | In sci.physics.relativity, PD | <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] | There's a fair number of issues here, not the least of which is | the differentiation of vector (velocity) versus scalar (speed). Correct. Phuckwit Duck doesn't and Phuckwit Einstein didn't know the difference. | However, a NASCAR or Indy racer completing 100-500 laps around his | favorite track (pick one: Indianapolis, Talledega, Atlanta, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | | average velocity = integral(t=0,t_end) v dt = integral(t=0,t_end) dx/dt .dt Integral (i.e. sum) of the dx's = 0. | speed of average velocity = || integral(t=0,t_end) v dt || Wrong. speed of average velocity = |dx/dt| | average speed = integral(t=0,t_end) ||v|| dt | | (This is admittedly somewhat Newtonian, though v(t) might be | construed as being observed by a stationary observer, who knows | to compensate for the delay of light between x(t) and himself. Of course its Newtonian, but the measurement is done at the start/finish line, the delay in light time is ignored; even from my living room watching on TV in Britain the delay at the start of the race equals the delay at the end of the race. | Since the velocity is at most 3 * 10^-7 c the errors are | minimal for NASCAR examples.) Not mimimal for cosmic muons, their VELOCITY is 15c. [snip irrelevant crap] Androcles. | > | > Your arguementr is based on the following bogus reasonings: | > | > 1. You assumed that there is no absolute motion in the vertical [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] | Oh, well done, Androcles, you've just demonstrated that Indy500 drivers | have a speed of zero for each lap they complete. Indeed I have, idiot. Indy 500 drivers have a velocity of zero for each lap they complete. | I suppose this is proof that mathematics is dangerous in the hands of | those who have no grip on physics. Yes, it is, you moron. Very dangerous in a hands of a phuckwit like you. Androcles. > | > Your arguementr is based on the following bogus reasonings: > | > 1. You assumed that there is no absolute motion in the vertical [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > TWLS = change of position = (dx + (-dx))/dt = 0 So why not TW(anything)S = (dx + (-dx))/dt = 0? > OWLS = change of position = dx/dt = c > TWLS <> OWLS. [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Androcles. | > | > Your arguementr is based on the following bogus reasonings: | > | > 1. You assumed that there is no absolute motion in the vertical [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] | | So why not TW(anything)S = (dx + (-dx))/dt = 0? You can if you want to. [quote] we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. [end quote] Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ [quote] For velocities greater than that of a turtle our deliberations become meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of a turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity. [quote] Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Nothing can go faster than a turtle. The velocity of turtles is the same in all frames of reference. Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'. Same phuckwit math, though. Androcles. | > OWLS = change of position = dx/dt = c | > TWLS <> OWLS. [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] | > | > Androcles. ACCELERATiON = (MAGNiTUDE or DiRECTiON CHANGE of VELOCiTY) / DURATiON. VELOCiTY = (ANY measured or imagined VECTOR) / DURATiON. SPEED = (ANY actual PATH) / DURATiON. What about mirror delay VELOCiTY DiRECTiON CHANGE (i.e. acceleration)? >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> tadchem wrote:> > David R Tribble wrote:> > brian a m stuckless wrote: > > > No.!! No no no.!! DP DooOP.!! > > > 1. "A clock and a ruler are two different things" ..in REAL [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > iNCONCiEVABLE, in gtr; (GR's T_uv CANNOT BE mathematically > > > RELATED to matter, in any way).!! > > > PROFOUNDLY, G_uv NO matter ..means NO SPACE-time-curvature > > > in GR.!! 2. "The measurement of the time of two instants of a clock" ..here in YOUR example, is a momentum VELOCiTY *duration* (time duration). 3. You CANNOT know MEASURED CLOCK POSiTiON A, within PLANCK length. EXHiBiT the VELOCiTY c & the SPEED c "as-MEASURED Least-Squares".!! $$ DoooOP DOooOP De dooOP De dooOP De dooOP De dooOP De dooOP De.!! CALL.!! CALL iMMEDiATELY.!! iMMEDiATELY.!!, if you happen to "fix" any HUP, or GR, POiNT A closer than PLANCK length, lp ..duh.!! A. HUP, UP, GR Tivity POSiTiON A PLANCK UNcertainty [ i CANNOT locate POSiTiON A ..to within (+) or (-) lp / 2. ] [ i CANNOT measure POSiTiON A closer than lp = hbar / Mp*c. ] [ This applies iNHERENTLY to "EXACT position of ANY CLOCK." ] [ This applies iNHERENTLY to "EXACT position of ANY RULER." ] [ This applies iNHERENTLY for "EXACT position of ANY BALL." ] *You CANNOT ((focus)) POSiTiON A closer than PLANCK LENGTH.!! THEREfore, Heisenberg's UN-necessary UNcertainty's REDUNDANT. B. Heisenberg's UNnecessary UNcertainty Principle [ HEiSENBERG UNcertainty's ALL about HOW dimwits ((focus)). ] [i CANNOT ((focus)) on BOTH ENDs of VELOCiTY vector AT ONCE.] Heisenberg was NOT WRONG ..just because he GOT CAUGHT too OFTEN, "Trying to ((focus)) on BOTH ENDs of VELOCiTY vectors, at once!" brian a m stuckless >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> Bilge wrote: > Rob_Exeter: > >Dear All, > >I was wondering if anybody could help me, I am a first year > >undergraduate Mechanical Engineering Student at the University [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > means rather than a technically rigorous explanation and > derivation.) Re: Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle & Pelton Wheel Design. |> 1. A clock and a ruler are two different things. > | > 2. You assumed that the leading edge of the light ray will return > | > to the source location. BTW this assumption violates the UP. Why? > | > Because it would mean that you would knoe the velocity and the > | > location of the light ray simultaneously. > | > 3. You assumed that 2(AB) does not include the delay time at the > | > mirror. > | > | That's right, because I'm assuming I've already applied the > | technique I described to remove the mirror delay time from the -- > | No, it is because isotropy -- demands that, once the mirror delay > | has been removed by experimental analysis, then -- > | Androcles. > > Androcles. Re: Planck out of bag.!! HUP UP Tivity POSiTiON A PLANCK UNcertainty. > ACCELERATiON = (MAGNiTUDE or DiRECTiON CHANGE of VELOCiTY) / DURATiON. Could you please elucidate your theory of lowercase letters in otherwise all-capitalized words?!?!! > > ACCELERATiON = (MAGNiTUDE or DiRECTiON CHANGE of VELOCiTY) / DURATiON. > > Could you please elucidate your theory of lowercase letters in > otherwise all-capitalized words?!?!! severe iNFERiORiTY complex. Dirk Vdm [brian a m stuckless aka BS] >> > ACCELERATiON = >> > (MAGNiTUDE or DiRECTiON CHANGE of VELOCiTY) / DURATiON. [Cilla, dear and otherwise] >> Could you please elucidate your theory of lowercase letters in >> otherwise all-capitalized words?!?!! [Dirk Vdm aka VD] > severe iNFERiORiTY complex. <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> > Dirk Vdm [hanson] Cilla, VD probably does know BS since it appears that both do sing in the same choir... as castrati.. One in tenor the other one in semi-baritone.... ahahaha.... BUT, Let'em sing!... All of'em... It's a beautiful choir.... ahahaha... ahahanson $ Typo-corrected *ACCELERATiON* Frame-of-Reference (thanks Dirk): ACCELERATiON = DiRECTiON, or (Velocity-MAGNiTUDE) / DURATiON, change. o o o o o o o vector o o o PROjECTiON A - - - VELOCiTY vector - -> B - - - - - -> C o o o o o o o o ..ANY actual PATH o GUESS *SPEED* is CLEARLY (..ANY actual PATH) / DURATiON.!! VELOCiTY = (Any measured or imagined VECTOR) / DURATiON.!! CLEARLY the POSiTiON B is an ARBiTRARY point on the PATH.!! Any *OTHER two POiNTs* on the *SAME PATH* is a *DiFFERENT* VECTOR.!! $ Has the FAT lady sung Brian's song.?!! NO, Dirk. YOU should've HEARD Premier Brian Tobin, TALKiNG.!! WOW.!! WHAT a ONE-WAY communicator.!! How he STRESSED WORDs, in emphasis.!! EVERY politician LOVEs to have PROPER emphasis on PRONOUNCED text.!! You will read MY posts, as if SPEAKiNG, loud & CLEAR, with THRUST.!! brian a m stuckless >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> tadchem wrote:> > David R Tribble wrote:> brian a m stuckless wrote: > > > No.!! No no no.!! DP DooOP.!! > > > 1. "A clock and a ruler are two different things" ..in REAL [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > (GR's T_uv CANNOT BE mathematically RELATED to matter, > > > in any way).!! > > > PROFOUNDLY, G_uv NO matter ..means NO SPACE-time-curvature > > > in GR.!! 2. "The measurement of the time of two instants of a clock" ..here in YOUR example, is Momentum-VELOCiTY *DURATiON* ..a time-duration. 3. You CANNOT know MEASURED CLOCK-POSiTiON A, within PLANCK-length. $$ DoooOP DOooOP De dooOP De dooOP De dooOP De dooOP De dooOP De.!! Show: 1986 VELOCiTY c or the SPEED c "as-MEASURED Least-Squares".!! CALL.!! CALL iMMEDiATELY.!! iMMEDiATELY.!! ..if you happen to "fix" any HUP, UP, or GR POiNT A closer than a PLANCK length, lp ..duh.!! A. HUP, UP or GR Tivity POSiTiON A PLANCK UNcertainty [ i CANNOT locate POSiTiON A ..to within (+) or (-) lp / 2. ] [ i CANNOT measure POSiTiON A closer than lp = hbar / Mp*c. ] [ This applies iNHERENTLY to "EXACT position of ANY CLOCK." ] [ This applies iNHERENTLY to "EXACT position of ANY RULER." ] [ This applies iNHERENTLY for "EXACT position of ANY BALL." ] *You CANNOT ((focus)) POSiTiON A closer than PLANCK LENGTH.!! THEREfore, Heisenberg's UN-necessary UNcertainty's REDUNDANT. B. Heisenberg's UNnecessary UNcertainty Principle [ HEiSENBERG UNcertainty's ALL about HOW dimwits ((focus)). ] [i CANNOT ((focus)) on BOTH ENDs of VELOCiTY vector AT ONCE.] Heisenberg was NOT WRONG ..just because he GOT CAUGHT too OFTEN, "Trying to ((focus)) on BOTH ENDs of VELOCiTY vectors, at once!" brian a m stuckless >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> > > Bilge wrote: > I was wondering if anybody could help me, -- >| PD wrote: > 1. A clock and a ruler are two different things. > | kenseto@erinet.com wrote: > | > 2. You assumed that the leading edge of the light ray will return > | > to the source location. BTW this assumption violates the UP. Why? > | > Because it would mean that you would knoe the velocity and the > | > location of the light ray simultaneously. About MiRROR-delay Velocity-*DiRECTiON-change* (i.e. acceleration).?!! Re: Planck out of bag.!! HUP UP Tivity POSiTiON A PLANCK UNcertainty. Absolute motion in the vertical direction will make the value of OWLS distance dependent and at the same time it will give isotropy to OWLS. This is not the case for TWLS. Why? Because with one clock it will give the correct ratio for light speed over at any distance. Remember that the speed of light is a constant math ratio as follows: Light path length of rod (299792458m)/the absolute time content for a clock second co-moving with the rod It is not a cop out that the SR concept for the propagation of light violates the UP. In fact all the problems of SR arise from this bogus concept. In real life, the leading edge of a light ray does not hit the target due to the target is in a state of absolute motion in the vertical direction. BTW this is the cause of the observed time dilation. Measured TWLS is not equal to measured OWLS. I can only be convinced by actual experiments. BTW your assertion that TWLS has been measured with the delay time at the mirror accounted for is a bogus assertion. The fact is thatTWLS has not been measured. If you think that I am wrong please provide the reference. Ken Seto Absolute motion in the vertical direction will make the value of OWLS distance dependent and at the same time it will give isotropy to OWLS. This is not the case for TWLS. Why? Because with one clock it will give the correct ratio for light speed over at any distance. Remember that the speed of light is a constant math ratio as follows: Light path length of rod (299792458m)/the absolute time content for a clock second co-moving with the rod It is not a cop out that the SR concept for the propagation of light violates the UP. In fact all the problems of SR arise from this bogus concept. In real life, the leading edge of a light ray does not hit the target due to the target is in a state of absolute motion in the vertical direction. BTW this is the cause of the observed time dilation. Measured TWLS is not equal to measured OWLS. I can only be convinced by actual experiments. BTW your assertion that TWLS has been measured with the delay time at the mirror accounted for is a bogus assertion. The fact is thatTWLS has not been measured. If you think that I am wrong please provide the reference. Ken Seto | A c'=c+v hypothesis has many problems -- starting with | various astronomical observations. Of course Androcles [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] | | I'm not seeing any particular inconsistency regarding c'=c here. Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are thicker than Alan Schwartz. You can't even compute dx/dt. http://www.freefarts.com Androcles In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles <Androcles@MyPlace.org> wrote on Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:08:34 GMT <mfS7f.9538$Ih5.738@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>: > | A c'=c+v hypothesis has many problems -- starting with > | various astronomical observations. Of course Androcles [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > http://www.freefarts.com > Androcles Taken from table 2-4 of https://edms.cern.ch/file/445830/5/Vol_1_Chapter_2.pdf, I get: dx=26658.883 m dt=1/11245 s (1 Hz = 1 cycle/s) v=299779139.335 m/s c=299792458.000 m/s Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles | <Androcles@MyPlace.org> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] | | c=299792458.000 m/s This is how is should be done: dx= 100km (height of atmosphere) dt = 2.2usec (life of muon) v = 4,545,454,545,454.545 m/s I did that without a table or a pdf, I guess you don't know what "velocity" means. As I said, you can't even compute dx/dt. BTW, where did you get c = 299792458.000 m/s from? I don't recall c being in v = dx/dt anywhere. Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are thicker than Eric Gisse or Alan Schwartz. http://www.freefarts.com Androcles > | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles > | <Androcles@MyPlace.org> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > dt = 2.2usec (life of muon) > v = 4,545,454,545,454.545 m/s *snort* And you measured that time with a clock on the ground, I suppose. Or did you measure it with two synchronized clocks, one at the top of the atmosphere and one at the ground? Where's your OBSERVATION, Androcles? > I did that without a table or a pdf, I guess you don't know > what "velocity" means. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > http://www.freefarts.com > Androcles | > | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles | > | <Androcles@MyPlace.org> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] | *snort* | And you measured that time with a clock on the ground, I suppose. The muon lives for 2.2 usec acording to a clock on the ground. You supposed wrong. | Or | did you measure it with two synchronized clocks, one at the top of the | atmosphere and one at the ground? | Where's your OBSERVATION, Androcles? The life of the muon, measured by a clock on the ground, and the height of the atmosphere, measured by a ruler on the ground. You can use SR if you like, snort, if you can manage simple High School algebra, snort. xi = (100km)/sqrt(1 - (dx/dt)^2/c^2 tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) = (t-v²t/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) = t(1-v²/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) = t*sqrt(1-v²/c²) = 2.2usec * sqrt(1-(dx/dt)²/c²) d(xi)/d(tau) = 100km*gamma / (2.2usec /gamma) = 100 km/2.2usec * gamma/gamma = 4,545,454,545,454.545 m/s, snort, which is the velocity of the Earth in the frame of the muon, snort. Psychotic ineducable boring ass-picking idiot, you are thicker than Eric Gisse, E.Will or Alan Schwartz. http://www.freefarts.com Androcles | > I did that without a table or a pdf, I guess you don't know | > what "velocity" means. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | > http://www.freefarts.com | > Androcles > | > | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles > | > | <Androcles@MyPlace.org> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > The muon lives for 2.2 usec acording to a clock on the ground. > You supposed wrong. I think not. Those are not the same muon. The muon that lived for 2.2 usec is one that is slow-moving or stationary with respect to the ground. You did not measure the lifetime of the falling muon. > | Or > | did you measure it with two synchronized clocks, one at the top of the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > d(xi)/d(tau) = 100km*gamma / (2.2usec /gamma) Oh, well done. I *love* that style of math. Did you borrow it from EinsteinHoax? He also says that because L'=L/gamma and T'=T/gamma, then SR must say that the velocity transforms as v'=L'/T'=v (that is, the velocity transform is the identity). You were saying something about psychotic, ineducable, boring and ass-picking? > = 100 km/2.2usec * gamma/gamma > = 4,545,454,545,454.545 m/s, snort, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > | > http://www.freefarts.com > | > Androcles [snip] > > The life of the muon, measured by a clock on the ground, and > > the height of the atmosphere, measured by a ruler on the ground. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > SR must say that the velocity transforms as v'=L'/T'=v (that is, the > velocity transform is the identity). Hm, actually Ernest Einsteinhoax Wittke had it the other way around: http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ChronicWittke.html He had the - ahem - "Lorentz Transformation for Length" L = L' / sqrt(1-v^2) for contraction and the - ahem - "Lorentz Transformation for Time" T = T' sqrt(1-v^2) for dilation and then deduced his "Lorentz Transformation for Velocity": L/T = L'/T' / (1-v^2) But perhaps, somewhere down the line he changed his mind and did it the way you just showed - I wouldn't be surprised. We had one bright "Dr. Cui Silong" (aka Jeany) who declared that L T = L' T' , and called it the invariance of Spacetime Area ;-) Dirk Vdm Androcles wrote: > | Androcles wrote: > | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > The muon lives for 2.2 usec acording to a clock on the ground. > You supposed wrong. I think not. Those are not the same muon. The muon that lived for 2.2 usec is one that is slow-moving or stationary with respect to the ground. You did not measure the lifetime of the falling muon. Doesn't really matter, you still have dx/dt = d(xi)/d(tau) = v, whatever t is. In order for xi to be seen by us as length-contracted to 100km, it must be greater than 100km in its own FoR. What's wrong, phuckwit? I thought you believed the cuckoo transformations. xi = 100 km/(something less than 1) = something greater than 100 km. Simple algebra too tough for you, psychotic ineducable phuckwit? (snort). > | Or > | did you measure it with two synchronized clocks, one at the top of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > d(xi)/d(tau) = 100km*gamma / (2.2usec /gamma) Oh, well done. I *love* that style of math. Oh good. I thought real math frightened you. You may be educable. Did you borrow it from EinsteinHoax? Nah, EinsteinHoax is a phuckwit aetherialist, I never bother to read his sh.t. I got it from Gisse (and the PoR, of course), not to mention assistant professor tusselad of Kristiansand several years ago. Looks like you are on your own trying to deny it, your fellow phuckwits disagree with you. He also says that because L'=L/gamma and T'=T/gamma, then SR must say that the velocity transforms as v'=L'/T'=v (that is, the velocity transform is the identity). Yeah, that's right. If it were false, the event of the muon meeting the ground would not be simultaneous with the event of the ground meeting the muon. You were saying something about psychotic, ineducable, boring and ass-picking? Yes, you are a psychotic, ineducable, boring ass-picker and a phuckwit. http://www.freefarts.com Androcles. > = 100 km/2.2usec * gamma/gamma > = 4,545,454,545,454.545 m/s, snort, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > | > http://www.freefarts.com > | > Androcles > Androcles wrote: > > | [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > In order for xi to be seen by us as length-contracted to 100km, it must > be Why would it be see by us to be length contracted? It might be seen to be contracted by someone for whom the atmosphere is *moving*, but not to us on the ground. For us on the ground, the atmosphere is 100 km, but the lifetime of the falling muon is not 2.2 usec. For someone for whom the atmosphere is moving but the muon is not, the lifetime of the muon is 2.2 usec but the depth of the atmosphere is not 100 km. > greater than 100km in its own FoR. What's wrong, phuckwit? > I thought you believed the cuckoo transformations. Indeed I do. I can understand why you think they're cuckoo, the way you misapply them, too. > xi = 100 km/(something less than 1) = something greater than 100 km. > Simple algebra too tough for you, psychotic ineducable phuckwit? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Looks like you are on your own trying to deny it, your fellow > phuckwits disagree with you. I don't think so. I don't think you "got" it. > He also says that because L'=L/gamma and T'=T/gamma, then > SR must say that the velocity transforms as v'=L'/T'=v (that is, the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ground > would not be simultaneous with the event of the ground meeting the muon. Simulataneity is a term that is reserved for two events, and that description is observer-dependent. > You were saying something about psychotic, ineducable, boring and > ass-picking? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > | > http://www.freefarts.com > > | > Androcles > > Androcles wrote: > > > | [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > Why would it be see by us to be length contracted? Answer: cuckoo transform. Why would the time of the muon be different, Phuckwit Duck? Answer: cuckoo transform. You think you can change one without the other, Phuckwit Duck? You are stupid as they come, Phuckwit Duck. You have no idea how Einstein derived his relativity, no idea of what is meant by length. Totally psychotic, a raving lunatic. Androcles. > It might be seen to be contracted by someone for whom the atmosphere is > *moving*, but not to us on the ground. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > I don't think so. I don't think I know ou dont think, Phuckwit Duck. Now f.ck off. Androcles. > > > Androcles wrote: > > > > | [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > Answer: cuckoo transform. > Why would the time of the muon be different, Phuckwit Duck? Because it is, Androcles. It's measured to be at muon factories on the ground. Oh, and the cuckoo transforms happen to predict that behavior. > Answer: cuckoo transform. > > You think you can change one without the other, Phuckwit Duck? I think the invariant interval between those two events is invariant. > You are stupid as they come, Phuckwit Duck. You have no idea > how Einstein derived his relativity, Neither do you. You're upset about how he wrote that down, but that's neither here nor there. > no idea of what is meant > by length. Totally psychotic, a raving lunatic. [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > Now f.ck off. > Androcles. Let's see. Here is where one of us pretends to plonk. PD androc1es@hotmail.com wrote: > PD wrote: > > Androcles wrote: [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > Answer: cuckoo transform. > Why would the time of the muon be different, Phuckwit Duck? Because it is, Androcles. It's measured to be at muon factories on the ground. Oh, and the cuckoo transforms happen to predict that behavior. The cuckoo transforms say the length will change, you seem to be hell bent on using only the half of the cuckoo transfroms you like. > Answer: cuckoo transform. > > You think you can change one without the other, Phuckwit Duck? I think the invariant interval between those two events is invariant. Here's the cuckoo transforms, Phuckwit Duck. tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) = (t-v²t/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) = t(1-v²/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) = t*sqrt(1-v²/c²) xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) Do you imagine you can change one without the other, idiot? Answer the f.cking question, moron. > You are stupid as they come, Phuckwit Duck. You have no idea > how Einstein derived his relativity, Neither do you. Ah, so you admit your ignorance, but idiotically assume I'm as stupid as you. I know only understand it, I know what is wrong with it. You are too stupid to know that v = dx/dt, you psychotic arsehole. You're upset about how he wrote that down, but that's neither here nor there. Piss off, you c.nt. You don't understand it, so you say it's irrelevant. f.cking moron! > no idea of what is meant > by length. Totally psychotic, a raving lunatic. [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > Now f.ck off. > Androcles. Let's see. Here is where one of us pretends to plonk. Go ahead, arsehole, I'm having fun right now, I've got an arrogant idiot that doesn't know v = dx/dt, what a frame is, uses half the cuckoo transforms and imagines he knows any physics. Androcles. Androcles, you really must get a real newsreader. Your attribution flags are broken, and it's hard to tell who said what. Please fix, or at some point it won't be worth sorting out your messages. > androc1es@hotmail.com wrote: > > PD wrote: [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > The cuckoo transforms say the length will change, you seem to be > hell bent on using only the half of the cuckoo transfroms you like. The cuckoo transforms are *coordinate* transforms, not length and duration transforms. Lengths are defined as spatial coordinate differences taken at the *same* time, and durations are defined as time coordinate differences taken at the *same* place. Yes, indeed, the cuckoo transforms change both the time and space coordinates. This does not mean that length and time will change for the *same* object as seen by the *same* observer. This is Luttgen's mistake, and you don't want to make the same mistake. > > Answer: cuckoo transform. > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Do you imagine you can change one without the other, idiot? > Answer the f.cking question, moron. Look, if you have two events and I^2 = Dx^2 - (c*Dt)^2 is invariant, so that it is also equal to D(x')^2 - (c*D(t'))^2, then yes, if Dx changes to Dx', then Dt will change to Dt'. But then the question to ask is, which one is length contraction, and which one is time dilation, as seen by which observer? > > You are stupid as they come, Phuckwit Duck. You have no idea > > how Einstein derived his relativity, > > Neither do you. > Ah, so you admit your ignorance, but idiotically assume I'm as > stupid as you. I know only understand it, I know what is wrong with it. No you don't. You assume that scintillator paddles can slow down muons to a hair less than c, regardless of the thickness of the paddle and regardless of the momentum of the muon, and you'd rather hold that up as a charming little mystery than to try to understand relativity. > You are too stupid to know that v = dx/dt, you psychotic arsehole. > [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > a frame is, uses half the cuckoo transforms and imagines > he knows any physics. And you on the other hand, are happy to use dx from one frame and dt from another frame to calculate v=dx/dt in either frame, and uses the cuckoo transforms in the same way, and then hasve the arrogance to say that he knows what they mean and what's wrong with them. This is akin to you shearing off a bolt head by cranking the wrong direction with a wrench and then proclaiming that you've discovered what's wrong with the wrench. > Androcles. Androcles wrote: Androcles, you really must get a real newsreader. Your attribution flags are broken, and it's hard to tell who said what. Please fix, or at some point it won't be worth sorting out your messages. Yeah, one these days... > androc1es@hotmail.com wrote: > > > Androcles wrote: [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > The cuckoo transforms say the length will change, you seem to be > hell bent on using only the half of the cuckoo transfroms you like. The cuckoo transforms are *coordinate* transforms, not length and duration transforms. x-vt is a length, Phuckwit Duck. You know f.ck all, you ranting moron. http://www.freefarts.com Androcles. Lengths are defined as spatial coordinate differences taken at the *same* time, and durations are defined as time coordinate differences taken at the *same* place. Yes, indeed, the cuckoo transforms change both the time and space coordinates. This does not mean that length and time will change for the *same* object as seen by the *same* observer. This is Luttgen's mistake, and you don't want to make the same mistake. > > Answer: cuckoo transform. > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Do you imagine you can change one without the other, idiot? > Answer the f.cking question, moron. Look, if you have two events and I^2 = Dx^2 - (c*Dt)^2 is invariant, so that it is also equal to D(x')^2 - (c*D(t'))^2, then yes, if Dx changes to Dx', then Dt will change to Dt'. But then the question to ask is, which one is length contraction, and which one is time dilation, as seen by which observer? > > You are stupid as they come, Phuckwit Duck. You have no idea > > how Einstein derived his relativity, > > Neither do you. > Ah, so you admit your ignorance, but idiotically assume I'm as > stupid as you. I know only understand it, I know what is wrong with it. No you don't. You assume that scintillator paddles can slow down muons to a hair less than c, regardless of the thickness of the paddle and regardless of the momentum of the muon, and you'd rather hold that up as a charming little mystery than to try to understand relativity. > You are too stupid to know that v = dx/dt, you psychotic arsehole. > [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > a frame is, uses half the cuckoo transforms and imagines > he knows any physics. And you on the other hand, are happy to use dx from one frame and dt from another frame to calculate v=dx/dt in either frame, and uses the cuckoo transforms in the same way, and then hasve the arrogance to say that he knows what they mean and what's wrong with them. This is akin to you shearing off a bolt head by cranking the wrong direction with a wrench and then proclaiming that you've discovered what's wrong with the wrench. > Androcles. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message