 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / February 2006Einstein's Hypnotists Make Fun of the Zombie World
Problem 25 on p. 51 in http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf : "Two spaceships float in space and are at rest relative to each other. They are connected by a string....At a given instant, the spaceships simultaneously start accelerating....with the same acceleration.....Will the string eventually break?" The solution is on p. 69 and the zombie world reads: "To an observer in the original rest frame, the spaceships stay the same distance, d, apart....After a long enough time,......the string will be stretched by a large factor. Therefore, it will break." Suddenly it occurs to the zombie world that the stretching string, like any other stretching string, gradually gets thinner, and Einstein's theory predicts that the same thinning will be observed by any observer, even the observer in the original rest frame. Then the zombie world, full of malicious joy, imagines the following scene. For the observer in the original rest frame the length of the string remains constant but the thickness gradually disappears. The observer is terrified, gets a massive heart attack and dies. Pentcho Valev > Problem 25 on p. 51 in > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > constant but the thickness gradually disappears. The observer is > terrified, gets a massive heart attack and dies. Zombies are EXTREMELY hard to kill, but I think Pentcho Valev might be able to kill a few. As sentient beings know Zombies can't think, and all they do is follow geodesic paths. It looks like Pentcho Valev is who can think and affect his environment, is forging a geodesic path for Zombies that leads them into a black hole. -- Tom Potter http://no-turtles.com http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001 http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001 http://tom-potter.blogspot.com In sci.physics.relativity, tdp1001@gmail.com <tdp1001@gmail.com> wrote on 24 Feb 2006 20:22:14 -0800 <1140841334.905882.161100@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>: >> Problem 25 on p. 51 in >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> same distance, d, apart....After a long enough time,......the string >> will be stretched by a large factor. Therefore, it will break." The logic is suspect. First, "simultaneity" cannot be proven; it depends on the observer. Second, the tension in the string is a factor in their acceleration; if one replaces the string with a *spring* one will see that the spacecraft will accelerate towards each other, absent expenditure of fuel. >> Suddenly it occurs to the zombie world that the stretching string, like >> any other stretching string, gradually gets thinner, and Einstein's [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Zombies can't think, > and all they do is follow geodesic paths. Hooloovoos notwithstanding, that's all light can do. > It looks like Pentcho Valev is > who can think and affect his environment, > is forging a geodesic path > for Zombies that leads them into a black hole. If one kills SR one needs to replace it. Any suggestions between the two of you? There are some interesting candidates already. [1] c'=c+v [Greenfield]. Classic theory. [2] BaTh, which appears to be a modified c'=c+v with gaseous attenuation, promoted by H. Wilson. [3] An anti-theory from Hexenmeister which looks like [1] but is not. [4] A probabilistic particle jump theory from Louis Savain which postulates that a cubic lattice holds all particles, and that the particles therein jump from point to point at lightspeed. [5] Kenseto's IRT, which is an extension of SR while simultaneously (?) postulating absolute time. [6] The Law of Lever, by dedanoe. One also has to at least try to account for the following. [1] (Compton scattering.) A photon hurtles towards an electron, and dislodges it towards a series of detectors. The theory should correctly predict the results -- in particular a probability curve for the angle of deflection (the general idea would be much like Rutherford's famous experiments) and the energies. [2] (LHC) A proton is -- somehow -- given 7 TeV of energy, and constrained to a 27 km ring via magnetic fields. How fast will it go around? How much energy will it lose while going around? If it hits an antiproton going in the opposite direction, what results? [3] A spaceborne pi meson hits something in the upper atmosphere (25km-100km) up, shattering it. One of the products is known to be a muon, which ends up going through a sea-level detector. What is the energy of that muon, and how long will it to take to decay? [4] (Twin Paradox) An earthbound muon is constrained to a storage ring, moving fast. Another muon is constrained to a storage ring, moving slowly. What happens? [5] (Michelson-Morley/Miller) A laser hits a half-silvered mirror; each resultant beam hits another mirror. The resultant beams ultimately combine in an interferometer. The entire apparatus, laser, mirrors, and all, is placed on a smoothly, very slowly rotating turntable. Assuming measurements are conducted with the turntable motionless, how many fringes will shift in the interferometer, as a function of laser wavelength and path length? [6] (Pound-Rebka) A beam of light falls down a tower. Estimate the wavelength at the bottom of the tower, as a function of tower height, gravitational field, lightspeed, and original wavelength. [7] (Hafele-Keating) Two pairs of clocks are synchronized. One pair is then split by having one fly eastbound around the world; the other pair is split by having one fly westbound. How much will the clocks vary upon their return, assuing flight schedules are known using standard commercial aviation/shipment? [8] (Cassini mission time query) What time is it, and how does it vary as the spacecraft moves in its orbit, and the Earth moves in *its* orbit? [9] Explain the observations surrounding a supernova; these include a neutrino burst and glowing brightly for some weeks, then fading from sight and eventual observation of a nebula, some of them rather pretty. [10] (Pioneer anomaly). The Pioneer spacecraft is showing a slight anomaly in its flightpath. Explain that anomaly. [11] Explain the AQL1493 lightcurve. (SR cannot do this, at least directly; I suspect the cause lies elsewhere. Note that a theoretical binary will show a U-shaped light/time curve given the right parameters of orbit and distance from Earth.) [12] Explain various dual neutron star orbiting binary observations, some of them extremely interesting. [13] Does Cygnus X-1 have a black hole? [.sigsnip]  Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. > In sci.physics.relativity, tdp1001@gmail.com > <tdp1001@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > If one kills SR one needs to replace it. This is misleading. You have a false principle - of constancy of the speed of light - the speed of light does not depend on the speed of source or observer. Since it is false, it should be replaced with the true principle of variability of speed of light - the speed of light does depend on the speed of source or observer. Then, of course, the corollaries of the false principle will have to be replaced with the corollaries of the true principle. And that is all you should do. Pentcho Valev > This is misleading. You have a false principle - of constancy of the > speed of light - Why is it false? -- Jan Bielawski >> This is misleading. You have a false principle - of constancy of the >> speed of light - > > Why is it false? Empirical data and the PoR. "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..." -- Einstein. Androcles. >>> This is misleading. You have a false principle - of constancy of the >>> speed of light - >> >> Why is it false? > >Empirical data ALL data shows the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. >and the PoR. Another falsehood. > "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, >when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..." -- >Einstein. >Androcles. In sci.physics.relativity, Lloyd Parker <lparker@emory.edu> wrote on Sat, 25 Feb 06 12:59:43 GMT <dtq5un$sdb$3@leto.cc.emory.edu>: >>>> This is misleading. You have a false principle - of constancy of the >>>> speed of light - [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > ALL data shows the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. I'm not 100% sure of that -- 99%, maybe. All peer-reviewed data might show that, for instance, but there was some information about a year or so back that suggested quantum tunnelling in an odd experiment goes faster than light, through a gap in a metal (?) cube. Also, "tired-light" theories -- in which a light quantum takes time to travel, as measured in its own reference frame -- have been discredited. (Or one can do a theoretical computation using the Lorentz, carefully eliding a division by zero at the apporpriate spot.) And of course Hexenmeister is apparently of the opinion that various effects -- AQL1493 and Cassini, plus some theoretical computations regarding Sagnac's effect -- show c'=c+v and/or absolute time, but the last I looked none of them has been accepted by the laypress, nor has the laypress expostulated a breakthrough in science by scientists using them. (There have been some reports of interesting neutron star-pairs, though; such are accepted, as far as I read the articles, as very definitive evidence for General Relativity.) [rest snipped] Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. Dear The Ghost In The Machine: > In sci.physics.relativity, Lloyd Parker > <lparker@emory.edu> ... >> ALL data shows the speed of light in a vacuum >> is constant. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > goes faster than light, through a gap in a > metal (?) cube. What is it about a metal cube, gap or not, that you think is a vacuum? If you research total internal reflection, you'll find that "something about" light *must* travel FTL through the less dense medium, to know whether or not it is to be totally internally reflected. Quantum behaviors confound any classical theory. David A. Smith In sci.physics.relativity, N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) <N> wrote on Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:05:35 -0700 <WL2Mf.711$fL3.683@fed1read01>: > Dear The Ghost In The Machine: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > dense medium, to know whether or not it is to be totally > internally reflected. I'll admit to some confusion on the matter. Presumably, there's enough discrepancies that, absent more data, one is bound to suggest that the communication is either immeasurable given the method described, or at lightspeed within measurement error. > Quantum behaviors confound any classical theory. Aye. I for one find quantum entanglement particularly interesting. > David A. Smith Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. Dear The Ghost In The Machine: > In sci.physics.relativity, N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) > <N> ... >>> I'm not 100% sure of that -- 99%, maybe. All >>> peer-reviewed data might show that, for [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > immeasurable given the method described, > or at lightspeed within measurement error. c constrains the bulk... not the quanta. >> Quantum behaviors confound any >> classical theory. > > Aye. I for one find quantum entanglement > particularly interesting. Yep. But you don't have to look any further than self-interference (aka. diffraction) for some real mysteries... David A. Smith > Dear The Ghost In The Machine: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > David A. Smith Dear The David A. Smith, You are a moron, but you are used to it by now. Androcles. > In sci.physics.relativity, Lloyd Parker > <lparker@emory.edu> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I'm not 100% sure of that -- 99%, maybe. Data is open to interpretation. Still, what would you know, you couldn't set your watch by Cassini time now and be 14 seconds right in May. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm [rest snipped] Androcles. >>>> This is misleading. You have a false principle - of constancy of the >>>> speed of light - [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > ALL data shows the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. Don't be silly. High school algebra: x² + y² + z² = c²t² Einstein xi² + eta² + zeta² = c²tau² Einstein tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) Einstein tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Androcles xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) Einstein eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Androcles Right or wrong, dumbfuck? If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are, pathetic shithead. For v = 0.866c, u = 0.866c, w = 0.866c the resultant velocity is sqrt( 3/4 + 3/4 +3/4) = 1.5c Right or wrong, shitforbrains? Einstein said eta = y, zeta = z because he did not know how to move sideways or up, anencephalous cretin. [quote] we establish by definition that the "time" required by a crab 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/ Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a crab. Oops!... Did I say 'a crab'? Sorry...'light'. "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." -- Einstein. In agreement with experience and without any assumption, BA = -AB, 2AB = AC, [AB +BA]/(t'A-tA) = 0 Hence c = 0 in Einstein's math. Observation: http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif Explanation: http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3) (Or stars explode twice in three months, which is stupid). In agreement with experience and without any assumption, you remain an arrogant, illiterate, innumerate, illogical, incompetent c.nt without a scrap of logic in you, you whining little toad. You don't have an inkling about mathematics or physics and live in the vain hope some moron will think you are clever, Mr SmartArse who pretends he understands physics and doesn't have a clue how to synchronize his watch to Cassini time. Modern physics: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm f.ck off, useless tord! tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are. Carry three watches or do not move sideways or ride an elevator. Personally I prefer three witches: Double double, toil and trouble, Fire burn and Einstein bubble. --- Pop! Hexenmeister. >>and the PoR. > > Another falsehood. A shithead like you wouldn't know what the PoR is. >> "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, >>when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..." -- >>Einstein. >>Androcles. > >>>> This is misleading. You have a false principle - of constancy of the > >>>> speed of light - [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles > tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Androcles Wrong. > xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) Einstein > eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles > zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Androcles > > Right or wrong, dumbfuck? Wrong. > If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are, You keep repeating this mantra - it won't make it true. Try 2+2=5 for a change. -- Jan Bielawski Hexenmeister wrote: > > In article <hoYLf.68956$YJ4.9470@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, > > "Hexenmeister" <vanquish@broom.Mickey> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles > tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Androcles Wrong. > xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) Einstein > eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles > zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Androcles > > Right or wrong, dumbfuck? Wrong. Ok, so Einstein was wrong. <shrug> > If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are, You keep repeating this mantra - it won't make it true. Try 2+2=5 for a change. You arseholes have been repeating the twin paradox mantra for years and that won't make it go away either. At least my mantra is comparitively new. Try 2-3 = 4 for a change. Androcles. > Hexenmeister wrote: > > > In article <hoYLf.68956$YJ4.9470@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Wrong. > Ok, so Einstein was wrong. <shrug> Not Einstein - you. Einstein never said that: xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) This set of three equations is your fabrication. > > > If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You arseholes have been repeating the twin paradox mantra > for years and that won't make it go away either. It's not true that "if one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are". This statement is nonsense. -- Jan Bielawski Hexenmeister wrote: > > > In article <hoYLf.68956$YJ4.9470@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, > > >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Wrong. Prove it. > > > xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) Einstein > > > eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Wrong. > Ok, so Einstein was wrong. <shrug> Not Einstein - you. Einstein never said that: xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Bilewacky: This set of three equations is your fabrication. Androcles: No no. xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) is definitely Einstein's fabrication. I read him say it myself. I said if one is wrong they all are. Einstein said "An analogous consideration--applied to the axes of Y and Z--it being borne in mind that light is always propagated with the velocity sqrt(c² - v²) gives us @tau/@y = 0, @tau/@z = 0. " tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) is Einstein's fabrication. Majority verdict, the Y and Z axes win by 2: 1 > > > If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You arseholes have been repeating the twin paradox mantra > for years and that won't make it go away either. It's not true that "if one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are". This statement is nonsense. Its not true that tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²). This statement is nonsense and so are you. Androcles. >>>>> This is misleading. You have a false principle - of constancy of the >>>>> speed of light - [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Don't be silly. Get an education. >High school algebra: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Right or wrong, dumbfuck? What of the above is empircal data? >If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are, >pathetic shithead. >For v = 0.866c, u = 0.866c, w = 0.866c the resultant velocity is >sqrt( 3/4 + 3/4 +3/4) = 1.5c >Right or wrong, shitforbrains? Slept through science class? >Einstein said >eta = y, [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] >>>Einstein. >>>Androcles. So when are you publishing all this? Can your Nobel be far behind? ROTFL >>>>>> This is misleading. You have a false principle - of constancy of the >>>>>> speed of light - [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Get an education. I already have one, thanks. >>High school algebra: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > What of the above is empircal data? The same empirical data Einstein wrote in "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", shithead. Of course you would not have read that since you don't have an education, and even if you did you'd not be able to understand it. >>If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are, >>pathetic shithead. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Slept through science class? Do you have any mathematics to discuss, arsehole? If not f.ck off, there's a good c.nt. >>Einstein said >>eta = y, [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > ROTFL It's on my web page, not that an uneducated moron like you be able to understand it since you don't know how to move sideways or up. ROFLMAO! http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ Androcles. >>>>>>> This is misleading. You have a false principle - of constancy of the >>>>>>> speed of light - [quoted text clipped - 123 lines] > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ >Androcles. I understand Einstein. And you're no Einstein. >>>>>>>> This is misleading. You have a false principle - of constancy of >>>>>>>> the [quoted text clipped - 127 lines] >> > I understand Einstein. And you're no Einstein. No you don't, and I wouldn't want to be. Now f.ck off, there's a good c.nt. Androcles. > >> This is misleading. You have a false principle - of constancy of the > >> speed of light - [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..." -- > Einstein. As measured in K, relatively to the origin of K: c As measured in k, relatively to the origin of k: c As measured in K, relatively to the origin of k: c-v As measured in k, relatively to the origin of K: c+v Which part do you pretend not to understand? Dirk Vdm In sci.physics.relativity, Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote on Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:10:37 GMT <hHYLf.278854$an.7985181@phobos.telenet-ops.be>: >> >> This is misleading. You have a false principle - of constancy of the >> >> speed of light - [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Dirk Vdm That is not empirical data; that is part of Einstein's theory attempting to explain, among other things, the MMX failure to detect absolute aether motion. Not that it matters; Androcles is on record as stating that SR predicts c = 0... :-) Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. > In sci.physics.relativity, Dirk Van de moortel > <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > attempting to explain, among other things, the MMX failure to > detect absolute aether motion. Yes, and I wonder how he explains what he allegedly fails to understand about which part of it. Dirk Vdm > Not that it matters; Androcles is on record as stating that SR > predicts c = 0... :-) > >> This is misleading. You have a false principle - of constancy of the > >> speed of light - [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..." -- > Einstein. That's the difference between velocity coordinates of *two* objects seen in a *single* frame of reference. Velocity is a vector, you know. Vectors in general can be added and subtracted, you see. What confuses you is the relationship between velocity coordinates of a *single object* seen from *two different* frames of reference (the "Einstein velocity addition" thing). Two object, one frame. One object, two frames. Different things. -- Jan Bielawski >> >> This is misleading. You have a false principle - of constancy of the >> >> speed of light - [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > seen in a *single* frame of reference. Velocity is a vector, you know. > Vectors in general can be added and subtracted, you see. I do see. "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." -- Einstein. In agreement with experience and without any assumption, BA = -AB, 2AB = AC, [AB +BA]/(t'A-tA) = 0 Hence c = 0 in Einstein's math. Vectors like -c and +c can be added and the sum is zero, you see. Glad we agree at last. > What confuses you I'm not confused, I can see right through Einstein's crap. I agree with you, vectors in general can be added and subtracted, you see. is the relationship between velocity coordinates of a > *single object* seen from *two different* frames of reference (the > "Einstein velocity addition" thing). > > Two object, one frame. What two object are you babbling about? Androcles. > One object, two frames. > Different things. > -- > Jan Bielawski > > What confuses you > > I'm not confused, I can see right through Einstein's crap. Nonsense. You cannot do simplest physics problems. How you can even THINK seriously (and post!!) about criticising Einstein is a mystery I'll leave psychiatrists on this NG to resolve. -- Jan Bielawski >> > What confuses you >> >> I'm not confused, I can see right through Einstein's crap. > > Nonsense. I know you are. You are still an arrogant, illiterate, innumerate, illogical, c.nt without a scrap of logic in you, you whining little toad. You don't have an inkling about mathematics or physics and live in the vain hope some moron will think you are clever, Mr SmartArse who pretends he understands relativity and doesn't have a clue how to synchronize his watch to Cassini time. Modern physics: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm Hey dumbfuck! Do you know how to move sideways or up? http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/how_to3.jpg High school algebra: x² + y² + z² = c²t² Einstein xi² + eta² + zeta² = c²tau² Einstein tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) Einstein tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Androcles xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) Einstein eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Androcles Right or wrong, dumbfuck? If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are, pathetic shithead. For v = 0.866c, u = 0.866c, w = 0.866c the resultant velocity is sqrt( 3/4 + 3/4 +3/4) = 1.5c Right or wrong, shitforbrains? Einstein said eta = y, zeta = z because he did not know how to move sideways or up, anencephalous cretin. [quote] we establish by definition that the "time" required by a crab 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/ Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a crab. Oops!... Did I say 'a crab'? Sorry...'light'. "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." -- Einstein. In agreement with experience and without any assumption, BA = -AB, 2AB = AC, [AB +BA]/(t'A-tA) = 0 Hence c = 0 in Einstein's math. Observation: http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif Explanation: http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3) (Or stars explode twice in three months, which is stupid). In agreement with experience and without any assumption, you remain an arrogant, illiterate, innumerate, illogical, incompetent c.nt without a scrap of logic in you, you whining little toad. You don't have an inkling about mathematics or physics and live in the vain hope some moron will think you are clever, Mr SmartArse who pretends he understands physics and doesn't have a clue how to synchronize his watch to Cassini time. Modern physics: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm f.ck off, useless tord! tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are. Carry three watches or do not move sideways or ride an elevator. Personally I prefer three witches: Double double, toil and trouble, Fire burn and Einstein bubble. --- Pop! Hexenmeister. >> This is misleading. You have a false principle - of constancy of the >> speed of light - > > Why is it false? Because, If you have to use self limiting math (transforms) to prove such, you are in fact proving it was not actually constant. You had to use the self limiting math itself to make it "supposedly" constant. Place any speed in place of the c in a tranform and the new supposed constant speed will be that speed now. Try it, use a speed of 100,000 meters per second as c and just so you don't use speed of light by accident replace c with k everyhwere is shows up and make k = 100,000 meters per second. If you do such. The new constant is the speed of k and that will now be 100,000 meters per second and all observers will measure k as the new constant speed. Self limiting math is more of a mathematical trick then a proof that something is constant to all observers. :) -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>> This is misleading. You have a false principle - of constancy of the >>> speed of light - [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >You had to use the self limiting math itself to make it "supposedly" >constant. Again, you throw out gibberish as supposed proof. >Place any speed in place of the c in a tranform and the new >supposed constant speed will be that speed now. So? Replace the charge on an electron with a different value and the equations for that work out differently too. >Try it, use a speed of 100,000 meters per second as c >and just so you don't use speed of light by accident [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >a proof that something is constant to all observers. >:) >>>> This is misleading. You have a false principle - of constancy of the >>>> speed of light - [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Again, you throw out gibberish as supposed proof. The "gibberish" I just threw out is only "gibberish" to the brainwashed. It is a simple fact to a brain that can actually think >>Place any speed in place of the c in a tranform and the new >>supposed constant speed will be that speed now. > > So? Replace the charge on an electron with a different value and the > equations for that work out differently too. You truly do not grasp what I said at all huh? The transform is helping in creating a constant that is not actually a constant. >>Try it, use a speed of 100,000 meters per second as c >>and just so you don't use speed of light by accident [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>a proof that something is constant to all observers. >>:) > >> This is misleading. You have a false principle - of constancy of the > >> speed of light - [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Self limiting math is more of a mathematical trick then > a proof that something is constant to all observers. You've fallen into the standard trap: the illusion that the constancy of the speed of light in SR is just the result of clock setting. You are not the first one. -- Jan Bielawski In sci.physics.relativity, Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote on 24 Feb 2006 23:24:07 -0800 <1140852247.612067.171970@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>: >> In sci.physics.relativity, tdp1001@gmail.com >> <tdp1001@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > speed of light - the speed of light does not depend on the speed of > source or observer. I *did* say you had to replace it. This is one of the principles of SR; it may need to be replaced as well. > Since it is false, it should be replaced with the > true principle of variability of speed of light - the speed of light > does depend on the speed of source or observer. Then, of course, the > corollaries of the false principle will have to be replaced with the > corollaries of the true principle. And that is all you should do. This is fine. Did you want c'=c+v or did you want some other formula? I should point out that an attempted measurement of k in the formula c'=c+kv suggests that k < 10^-9 or thereabouts; unfortunately, I'm not at all sure how to find this particular experiment in the literature. But never mind that; mathematically express the "true principle" as you call it and we'll see what we can do. > Pentcho Valev Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. > In sci.physics.relativity, tdp1001@gmail.com <tdp1001@gmail.com> > wrote [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > The logic is suspect. (I'm about to plonk all threads started by Valev for good (adding a rule to do it automatically) and thought I'd take a quick peek first to see if there's anything worth replying to here, and I saw this.) The logic is fine. It's "Bell's Paradox", IIRC, and it can be viewed several ways. To start with, as the ships speed up, the system of two ships and a string must _contract_ as viewed by a "stationary" observer. By the assumptions in the statement of the problem, the two ships are held a _fixed_ _distance_ apart in the "stationary" frame; something has to give, and the string breaks. Alternatively, translate into a Lorentz frame which is momentarily co-moving with the first spaceship. Initially this frame looks just like the "stationary" frame. Later, you find that in the local Lorentz frame of the leading ship, the trailing ship is _farther_ _away_. So, in the frame of either ship (or the string, for that matter) the string must be stretching. Eventually it breaks. Another way to view it is to look at it from the POV of someone riding in the first ship. There's a uniform space-filling g-field (sort of) and the second ship is sunk deeper in the universal gravity well. Therefore the clock on the trailing ship is seen to be going slower than the clock on the leading ship. (If you view it from the trailing ship you get the same result -- time's going faster for the leading ship.) But the trailing vessel measures the _same_ _acceleration_ as the leading ship. How can that be? It turns out that, as viewed by riders on the leading ship (using telescopes, or whatever) the _trailing_ vessel is measured to be accelerating less rapidly than the leading vessel. Conversely, riders on the trailing vessel see the leading vessel accelerating _more_ rapidly. Again, the difference in clock rates forces this conclusion, and the conclusion leads inevitably to the same result, which is that the string must eventually break. Finally, any observer in uniform acceleration must find there is a "Rindler horizon" someplace "behind" him/her. Time for objects "behind" the accelerating observer seems to go slower, and the farther back another observer is, the slower time seems to go for them. At some distance, time stops entirely; beyond that point time seems to go backwards. You can't ever see time going backwards, though, and in fact the "Rindler horizon" is at the point where time seems to stop. If the acceleration goes on long enough and the string stretches far enough, the Rindler horizon will eventually be close enough to the first ship that it will cut the string. And then the string _must_ break, no matter what it's made of. (And now, as soon as this shows up I'll be plonking this thread and all others started by Valev. So on the off chance that you want me to see a response to this you should email me or start a new (non-Valev) thread on it ... or depend on the fact that I sometimes use Google and might see it there.) > First, "simultaneity" cannot be proven; it depends > on the observer. Second, the tension in the string is a factor in their > acceleration; if one replaces the string with a *spring* one will see that > the spacecraft will accelerate towards each other, absent expenditure of > fuel. SignatureNospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org [Still having posting trouble, so reposting via Google...] > In sci.physics.relativity, tdp1001@gmail.com <tdp1001@gmail.com> > wrote [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > The logic is suspect. (I'm about to plonk all threads started by Valev for good (adding a rule to do it automatically) and thought I'd take a quick peek first to see if there's anything worth replying to here, and I saw this.) The logic is fine. It's "Bell's Paradox", IIRC, and it can be viewed several ways. To start with, as the ships speed up, the system of two ships and a string must _contract_ as viewed by a "stationary" observer. By the assumptions in the statement of the problem, the two ships are held a _fixed_ _distance_ apart in the "stationary" frame; something has to give, and the string breaks. Alternatively, translate into a Lorentz frame which is momentarily co-moving with the first spaceship. Initially this frame looks just like the "stationary" frame. Later, you find that in the local Lorentz frame of the leading ship, the trailing ship is _farther_ _away_. So, in the frame of either ship (or the string, for that matter) the string must be stretching. Eventually it breaks. Another way to view it is to look at it from the POV of someone riding in the first ship. There's a uniform space-filling g-field (sort of) and the second ship is sunk deeper in the universal gravity well. Therefore the clock on the trailing ship is seen to be going slower than the clock on the leading ship. (If you view it from the trailing ship you get the same result -- time's going faster for the leading ship.) But the trailing vessel measures the _same_ _acceleration_ as the leading ship. How can that be? It turns out that, as viewed by riders on the leading ship (using telescopes, or whatever) the _trailing_ vessel is measured to be accelerating less rapidly than the leading vessel. Conversely, riders on the trailing vessel see the leading vessel accelerating _more_ rapidly. Again, the difference in clock rates forces this conclusion, and the conclusion leads inevitably to the same result, which is that the string must eventually break. Finally, any observer in uniform acceleration must find there is a "Rindler horizon" someplace "behind" him/her. Time for objects "behind" the accelerating observer seems to go slower, and the farther back another observer is, the slower time seems to go for them. At some distance, time stops entirely; beyond that point time seems to go backwards. You can't ever see time going backwards, though, and in fact the "Rindler horizon" is at the point where time seems to stop. If the acceleration goes on long enough and the string stretches far enough, the Rindler horizon will eventually be close enough to the first ship that it will cut the string. And then the string _must_ break, no matter what it's made of. (And now, as soon as this shows up I'll be plonking this thread and all others started by Valev. So on the off chance that you want me to see a response to this you should email me or start a new (non-Valev) thread on it ... or depend on the fact that I sometimes use Google and might see it there.) > First, "simultaneity" cannot be proven; it depends > on the observer. Second, the tension in the string is a factor in their > acceleration; if one replaces the string with a *spring* one will see > that the spacecraft will accelerate towards each other, absent > expenditure of fuel. SignatureI can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.