| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Androcles" |
| Date: |
09 Jan 2005 07:24:05 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
"PDraper" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BE062240.A2C%pdraper@yahoo.com...
On 1/8/05 10:15 AM, in article
XNSDd.29680$C8.10512@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk, "Androcles"
<dummy@dummy.net> wrote:
"PDraper" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BE054FDB.8DA%pdraper@yahoo.com...
Let's see. Where were we?
You seem to be done with Randy Poe, so let's pick up somewhere near
where we
left off.
However, unlike your discussion with Randy, let's try to stick with
the 1905
paper.
That's what I tried to do with Randy, Paul, but he was lost in
Einstein's notation.
Would you mind including the URL to the translated paper again for
this thread?
Gladly.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Also, in light of your discussion with Randy, I'd like to suggest an
amendment to the basic ground rules. Let me know if you agree to it.
Err, the ground rules were already agreed to.
"
Draper:
: Androcles, in your case, I will get over my disenchantment.
:
: But I want this to be a fruitful exchange between the two of us, so
: let's agree on some ground rules. We'll go things one little step
at
a
: time. When we get to a point of conflict, we'll identify what the
: error is on either side, and the party in error MUST acknowledge
the
: error and remove the erroneous statement from further discussion.
Androcles:
I'll agree to your terms.
My terms:
Either one of us could inadvertantly make a typographical error
or simple arithmetic error, and should correct it if noticed.
I'd require: the error to be acknowledged and corrected; the
discussion continued until I have convince you or you have
convinced me. Failing to respond in a reasonable time
is a Pyrrhic victory and unsatisfactory. The penalty for failing
to respond is to be hounded by me at any time I choose.
You are currently in violation of the ground rules.
You have not responded in a reasonable time or acknowledged error.
I see no good reason to agree to any further rules.
Androcles.
Well, let's try it anyway.
We'll say that there is a fixed-length rod with an emitter and a
receiver at
one end, along with a clock, and a mirror at the other end, along with
a
clock. By "fixed" I mean the rod does not change length as time goes
by.
We'll say that the clocks are synchronized in a frame of reference if:
A. The rod is stationary in the frame of reference.
B. t2 = (1/2)(t1 + t3), where t1 is the time of emission of a light
pulse
from the emitter, t2 is the time of reflection from the mirror, and t3
is
the time of receipt at the receiver.
OK so far?
No. You are using Poe's dreadful notation. Stick to Einstein's.
t1 = (t0 + t2)/2 under the conditions specified.
Understand I was having fun jerking Poe's chain, he said I was idiotic
at the get-go and snipped any point he was unable to answer.
This he calls 'nettiquette', and I call willfully ignorant.
McCullough is another like him.
We'll also say that the measuring tapes are synchronized in a frame
of reference if:
A. The clocks match second for second in the frame of reference.
B. x1 = (x0 + x2), where x0 is the place of the emitter, x1 is the place
of the mirror, and x2 is the place of the receiver.
Ok so far?
Androcles.
.
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
09 Jan 2005 07:55:22 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message news:VfaEd.81857$Z7.10433@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"PDraper" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BE062240.A2C%pdraper@yahoo.com...
On 1/8/05 10:15 AM, in article
XNSDd.29680$C8.10512@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk, "Androcles"
<dummy@dummy.net> wrote:
"PDraper" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BE054FDB.8DA%pdraper@yahoo.com...
Let's see. Where were we?
You seem to be done with Randy Poe, so let's pick up somewhere near
where we
left off.
However, unlike your discussion with Randy, let's try to stick with
the 1905
paper.
That's what I tried to do with Randy, Paul, but he was lost in
Einstein's notation.
Would you mind including the URL to the translated paper again for
this thread?
Gladly.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Also, in light of your discussion with Randy, I'd like to suggest an
amendment to the basic ground rules. Let me know if you agree to it.
Err, the ground rules were already agreed to.
"
Draper:
: Androcles, in your case, I will get over my disenchantment.
:
: But I want this to be a fruitful exchange between the two of us, so
: let's agree on some ground rules. We'll go things one little step
at
a
: time. When we get to a point of conflict, we'll identify what the
: error is on either side, and the party in error MUST acknowledge
the
: error and remove the erroneous statement from further discussion.
Androcles:
I'll agree to your terms.
My terms:
Either one of us could inadvertantly make a typographical error
or simple arithmetic error, and should correct it if noticed.
I'd require: the error to be acknowledged and corrected; the
discussion continued until I have convince you or you have
convinced me. Failing to respond in a reasonable time
is a Pyrrhic victory and unsatisfactory. The penalty for failing
to respond is to be hounded by me at any time I choose.
You are currently in violation of the ground rules.
You have not responded in a reasonable time or acknowledged error.
I see no good reason to agree to any further rules.
Androcles.
Well, let's try it anyway.
We'll say that there is a fixed-length rod with an emitter and a
receiver at
one end, along with a clock, and a mirror at the other end, along with
a
clock. By "fixed" I mean the rod does not change length as time goes
by.
We'll say that the clocks are synchronized in a frame of reference if:
A. The rod is stationary in the frame of reference.
B. t2 = (1/2)(t1 + t3), where t1 is the time of emission of a light
pulse
from the emitter, t2 is the time of reflection from the mirror, and t3
is
the time of receipt at the receiver.
OK so far?
No. You are using Poe's dreadful notation. Stick to Einstein's.
t1 = (t0 + t2)/2 under the conditions specified.
Understand I was having fun jerking Poe's chain, he said I was idiotic
at the get-go and snipped any point he was unable to answer.
This he calls 'nettiquette', and I call willfully ignorant.
McCullough is another like him.
That's what people usually get when they try to educate an Ape :-)
We'll also say that the measuring tapes are synchronized in a frame
of reference if:
A. The clocks match second for second in the frame of reference.
B. x1 = (x0 + x2), where x0 is the place of the emitter, x1 is the place
of the mirror, and x2 is the place of the receiver.
Ok so far?
So now let's see how Paul reacts to surrealism.
This is going to be fun :-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
10 Jan 2005 09:18:03 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
"PDraper" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BE062240.A2C%pdraper@yahoo.com...
On 1/8/05 10:15 AM, in article
XNSDd.29680$C8.10512@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk, "Androcles"
<dummy@dummy.net> wrote:
"PDraper" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BE054FDB.8DA%pdraper@yahoo.com...
Let's see. Where were we?
You seem to be done with Randy Poe, so let's pick up somewhere
near
where we
left off.
However, unlike your discussion with Randy, let's try to stick
with
the 1905
paper.
That's what I tried to do with Randy, Paul, but he was lost in
Einstein's notation.
Would you mind including the URL to the translated paper again
for
this thread?
Gladly.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Also, in light of your discussion with Randy, I'd like to suggest
an
amendment to the basic ground rules. Let me know if you agree to
it.
Err, the ground rules were already agreed to.
"
Draper:
: Androcles, in your case, I will get over my disenchantment.
:
: But I want this to be a fruitful exchange between the two of us,
so
: let's agree on some ground rules. We'll go things one little
step
at
a
: time. When we get to a point of conflict, we'll identify what
the
: error is on either side, and the party in error MUST acknowledge
the
: error and remove the erroneous statement from further
discussion.
Androcles:
I'll agree to your terms.
My terms:
Either one of us could inadvertantly make a typographical error
or simple arithmetic error, and should correct it if noticed.
I'd require: the error to be acknowledged and corrected; the
discussion continued until I have convince you or you have
convinced me. Failing to respond in a reasonable time
is a Pyrrhic victory and unsatisfactory. The penalty for failing
to respond is to be hounded by me at any time I choose.
You are currently in violation of the ground rules.
You have not responded in a reasonable time or acknowledged
error.
I see no good reason to agree to any further rules.
Androcles.
Well, let's try it anyway.
We'll say that there is a fixed-length rod with an emitter and a
receiver at
one end, along with a clock, and a mirror at the other end, along
with
a
clock. By "fixed" I mean the rod does not change length as time
goes
by.
We'll say that the clocks are synchronized in a frame of reference
if:
A. The rod is stationary in the frame of reference.
B. t2 = (1/2)(t1 + t3), where t1 is the time of emission of a light
pulse
from the emitter, t2 is the time of reflection from the mirror, and
t3
is
the time of receipt at the receiver.
OK so far?
No. You are using Poe's dreadful notation. Stick to Einstein's.
t1 = (t0 + t2)/2 under the conditions specified.
OK, that's fine.
Understand I was having fun jerking Poe's chain, he said I was
idiotic
at the get-go and snipped any point he was unable to answer.
This he calls 'nettiquette', and I call willfully ignorant.
McCullough is another like him.
We'll also say that the measuring tapes are synchronized in a frame
of reference if:
A. The clocks match second for second in the frame of reference.
We will assume that in any frame of reference, the synchronization
procedure has been followed, and can be checked with a stationary
emitter/mirror/receiver combination.
B. x1 = (x0 + x2), where x0 is the place of the emitter, x1 is the
place
of the mirror, and x2 is the place of the receiver.
Ok so far?
Uh, no. The receiver is at the same end of the stationary rod as the
emitter. Therefore x0 = x2 in the frame in which the rod is stationary.
I see no place in Einstein's paper where an emitter/mirror/receiver
*being used to check synchronization* in a frame is not stationary in
that frame. Explain where if you disagree.
Moving forward a little:
Take a frame k that is moving toward positive x (that's a K coordinate)
with a speed v. Any point that is moving to the right (positive x) with
steady speed v will be stationary in k.
This means that any fixed-length rod in K (recall definition of
"fixed") that is moving to the right with speed v in K, will also have
a fixed length in k. This we know because either end of the rod is
moving to the right with velocity v in K; therefore, either end of the
rod is stationary in k; therefore, the rod has a fixed length in k.
What we DON'T know yet is whether the fixed length in k is the same as
the fixed length in K. That's what we aim to find out. All we know is
that the length of the rod stationary in k has a fixed length in k and
a fixed length in K.
OK so far?
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
10 Jan 2005 09:40:00 AM |
|
|
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105370283.925594.131080@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Androcles wrote:
"PDraper" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BE062240.A2C%pdraper@yahoo.com...
On 1/8/05 10:15 AM, in article
XNSDd.29680$C8.10512@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk, "Androcles"
<dummy@dummy.net> wrote:
"PDraper" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BE054FDB.8DA%pdraper@yahoo.com...
Let's see. Where were we?
You seem to be done with Randy Poe, so let's pick up somewhere
near
where we
left off.
However, unlike your discussion with Randy, let's try to stick
with
the 1905
paper.
That's what I tried to do with Randy, Paul, but he was lost in
Einstein's notation.
Would you mind including the URL to the translated paper again
for
this thread?
Gladly.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Also, in light of your discussion with Randy, I'd like to suggest
an
amendment to the basic ground rules. Let me know if you agree to
it.
Err, the ground rules were already agreed to.
"
Draper:
: Androcles, in your case, I will get over my disenchantment.
:
: But I want this to be a fruitful exchange between the two of us,
so
: let's agree on some ground rules. We'll go things one little
step
at
a
: time. When we get to a point of conflict, we'll identify what
the
: error is on either side, and the party in error MUST acknowledge
the
: error and remove the erroneous statement from further
discussion.
Androcles:
I'll agree to your terms.
My terms:
Either one of us could inadvertantly make a typographical error
or simple arithmetic error, and should correct it if noticed.
I'd require: the error to be acknowledged and corrected; the
discussion continued until I have convince you or you have
convinced me. Failing to respond in a reasonable time
is a Pyrrhic victory and unsatisfactory. The penalty for failing
to respond is to be hounded by me at any time I choose.
You are currently in violation of the ground rules.
You have not responded in a reasonable time or acknowledged
error.
I see no good reason to agree to any further rules.
Androcles.
Well, let's try it anyway.
We'll say that there is a fixed-length rod with an emitter and a
receiver at
one end, along with a clock, and a mirror at the other end, along
with
a
clock. By "fixed" I mean the rod does not change length as time
goes
by.
We'll say that the clocks are synchronized in a frame of reference
if:
A. The rod is stationary in the frame of reference.
B. t2 = (1/2)(t1 + t3), where t1 is the time of emission of a light
pulse
from the emitter, t2 is the time of reflection from the mirror, and
t3
is
the time of receipt at the receiver.
OK so far?
No. You are using Poe's dreadful notation. Stick to Einstein's.
t1 = (t0 + t2)/2 under the conditions specified.
OK, that's fine.
Understand I was having fun jerking Poe's chain, he said I was
idiotic
at the get-go and snipped any point he was unable to answer.
This he calls 'nettiquette', and I call willfully ignorant.
McCullough is another like him.
We'll also say that the measuring tapes are synchronized in a frame
of reference if:
A. The clocks match second for second in the frame of reference.
We will assume that in any frame of reference, the synchronization
procedure has been followed, and can be checked with a stationary
emitter/mirror/receiver combination.
B. x1 = (x0 + x2), where x0 is the place of the emitter, x1 is the
place
of the mirror, and x2 is the place of the receiver.
Ok so far?
Uh, no. The receiver is at the same end of the stationary rod as the
emitter. Therefore x0 = x2 in the frame in which the rod is
stationary.
I see no place in Einstein's paper where an emitter/mirror/receiver
*being used to check synchronization* in a frame is not stationary in
that frame. Explain where if you disagree.
Ok, you make a suggestion on how we are to synchronize the yardsticks,
then.
Moving forward a little:
Take a frame k that is moving toward positive x (that's a K
coordinate)
with a speed v. Any point that is moving to the right (positive x)
with
steady speed v will be stationary in k.
Of course. That's Galilean relativity. I've never disagreed with that.
This means that any fixed-length rod in K (recall definition of
"fixed") that is moving to the right with speed v in K, will also have
a fixed length in k.
Of course. That's Galilean relativity. I've never disagreed with that.
This we know because either end of the rod is
moving to the right with velocity v in K; therefore, either end of the
rod is stationary in k; therefore, the rod has a fixed length in k.
Of course. That's Galilean relativity. I've never disagreed with that.
What we DON'T know yet is whether the fixed length in k is the same as
the fixed length in K.
Ah, well, we need to synchronize them before moving, don't we?
That's what we aim to find out.
No problem. Synchronize the lengths when stationary and employ
the definition of "fixed" in each frame.
All we know is
that the length of the rod stationary in k has a fixed length in k and
a fixed length in K.
Of course it does. If one rod is 1 unit stationary and the other rod is
1 unit
moving, then the 1 unit stationary isn't going to grow past one unit
just
because someone decided to move another 1 unit rod past it. That's
absurd.
What if I moved a third rod in the opposite direction?
OK so far?
No. You haven't agreed on a method of synchronizing the rods yet.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
11 Jan 2005 02:26:15 AM |
|
|
Androcles:
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Uh, no. The receiver is at the same end of the stationary rod as the
emitter. Therefore x0 = x2 in the frame in which the rod is
stationary.
I see no place in Einstein's paper where an emitter/mirror/receiver
*being used to check synchronization* in a frame is not stationary in
that frame. Explain where if you disagree.
Ok, you make a suggestion on how we are to synchronize the yardsticks,
then.
Buy an Acme Yardstick Synchronizer. Then go synchronize the
sticks in your yard.
[...]
Moving forward a little:
Take a frame k that is moving toward positive x (that's a K
coordinate)
with a speed v. Any point that is moving to the right (positive x)
with
steady speed v will be stationary in k.
Of course. That's Galilean relativity. I've never disagreed with that.
Why not? You don't understand that either.
[...]
What we DON'T know yet is whether the fixed length in k is the same as
the fixed length in K.
Ah, well, we need to synchronize them before moving, don't we?
Maybe the people to whom you sell your house don't care about having
the sticks in the yard synchronized.
All we know is
that the length of the rod stationary in k has a fixed length in k and
a fixed length in K.
Of course it does. If one rod is 1 unit stationary and the other rod is
1 unit moving, then the 1 unit stationary isn't going to grow past one
unit just because someone decided to move another 1 unit rod past it.
That's absurd. What if I moved a third rod in the opposite direction?
If it's absurd, you should add it to your repertoire of absurd
slogans.
OK so far?
No. You haven't agreed on a method of synchronizing the rods yet.
Just sit on two at the same time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
11 Jan 2005 03:21:47 AM |
|
|
Bilge wrote:
Buy an Acme Yardstick Synchronizer. Then go synchronize the
sticks in your yard.
BILGE, you're an IDIOT, SHUT the ***** UP, let Andro
speak with you molesting him...you're a mini Dirk.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
11 Jan 2005 03:57:33 AM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1105435307.258699.90850@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bilge wrote:
Buy an Acme Yardstick Synchronizer. Then go synchronize the
sticks in your yard.
BILGE, you're an IDIOT, SHUT the ***** UP, let Andro
speak with you molesting him...you're a mini Dirk.
It's ok, Bilge is on my-kill file just like Dinky.
I wouldn't know what he had said but for reading your post.
They are heckling for attention to themselves, they have
no interest in physics.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
11 Jan 2005 04:40:22 AM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message news:1105435307.258699.90850@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bilge wrote:
Buy an Acme Yardstick Synchronizer. Then go synchronize the
sticks in your yard.
BILGE, you're an IDIOT, SHUT the ***** UP, let Andro
speak with you molesting him...you're a mini Dirk.
Indeed, Bilge, by no means interfere when Andofart finds a way
to synchronize his rod with Ken's - dangerous business, that is.
[ Did you know I have a picture of Androcles in his backyard
(from the time when he was living in the U.S.), where he is
in the act of measuring a sun dial stick? Email me if you want
to know what Androcles looks like ;-) ]
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
12 Jan 2005 12:36:36 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
Bilge wrote:
Buy an Acme Yardstick Synchronizer. Then go synchronize the
sticks in your yard.
BILGE, you're an IDIOT, SHUT the ***** UP, let Andro
speak with you molesting him...you're a mini Dirk.
Indeed, Bilge, by no means interfere when Andofart finds a way
to synchronize his rod with Ken's - dangerous business, that is.
[ Did you know I have a picture of Androcles in his backyard
(from the time when he was living in the U.S.), where he is
in the act of measuring a sun dial stick? Email me if you want
to know what Androcles looks like ;-) ]
If he looks anything like what he writes, I think medusa has better
odds on safety.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
12 Jan 2005 05:49:07 AM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrncu9nap.8b8.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Dirk Van de moortel:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
Bilge wrote:
Buy an Acme Yardstick Synchronizer. Then go synchronize the
sticks in your yard.
BILGE, you're an IDIOT, SHUT the ***** UP, let Andro
speak with you molesting him...you're a mini Dirk.
Indeed, Bilge, by no means interfere when Andofart finds a way
to synchronize his rod with Ken's - dangerous business, that is.
[ Did you know I have a picture of Androcles in his backyard
(from the time when he was living in the U.S.), where he is
in the act of measuring a sun dial stick? Email me if you want
to know what Androcles looks like ;-) ]
If he looks anything like what he writes, I think medusa has
better
odds on safety.
My impression is that his mother named him Androclown because of a
similarity to Bozo.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
12 Jan 2005 05:54:29 AM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:cs32rj$gg4$3@titan.btinternet.com...
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrncu9nap.8b8.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Dirk Van de moortel:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
Bilge wrote:
Buy an Acme Yardstick Synchronizer. Then go synchronize the
sticks in your yard.
BILGE, you're an IDIOT, SHUT the ***** UP, let Andro
speak with you molesting him...you're a mini Dirk.
Indeed, Bilge, by no means interfere when Andofart finds a way
to synchronize his rod with Ken's - dangerous business, that is.
[ Did you know I have a picture of Androcles in his backyard
(from the time when he was living in the U.S.), where he is
in the act of measuring a sun dial stick? Email me if you want
to know what Androcles looks like ;-) ]
If he looks anything like what he writes, I think medusa has
better odds on safety.
My impression is that his mother named him Androclown because of a
similarity to Bozo.
Spot on. He *does* look a bit like
http://www.pickletreats.com/hairclub/bozo.jpg
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
12 Jan 2005 02:41:54 AM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message news:slrncu9nap.8b8.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Dirk Van de moortel:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
Bilge wrote:
Buy an Acme Yardstick Synchronizer. Then go synchronize the
sticks in your yard.
BILGE, you're an IDIOT, SHUT the ***** UP, let Andro
speak with you molesting him...you're a mini Dirk.
Indeed, Bilge, by no means interfere when Andofart finds a way
to synchronize his rod with Ken's - dangerous business, that is.
[ Did you know I have a picture of Androcles in his backyard
(from the time when he was living in the U.S.), where he is
in the act of measuring a sun dial stick? Email me if you want
to know what Androcles looks like ;-) ]
If he looks anything like what he writes, I think medusa has better
odds on safety.
The first time you see the picture, you get an eerie feeling of
compassion. It quickly wears off though ;-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
11 Jan 2005 02:17:59 PM |
|
|
Dirk
Why should bilge ridicule people trying
to learn some physics? Seemed like a
reasonable conversation he butted into.
That happens too often now.
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
11 Jan 2005 08:56:28 PM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker:
Dirk
Why should bilge ridicule people trying to learn some physics?
I don't ridicule anyone trying to learn physics. Androsleaze posts here
because of some pathological dislike he has of physics - a physicist
probably told androsleaze he was wrong and androsleaze has harbored a
resentment ever since. No one, not even a patient in a coma, could
possibly spend >4 years trying to debunk the algebra in a simple
coordinate transfor- mation and still not understand the algebra part,
given the number of attempts to explain it to him. He's a middle-aged man
with nothing better to do than settle some personal grudge at the expense
of those who might have wanted to learn some physics. If he were here to
lean physics, he would make some attempt to do so. At least then, he might
have learned enough in 4 years to come up with an argument that isn't
based upon misconceptions about algebra.
You aren't much better, ken - you argue for no particular reason, even
when the person responding is steve carlip, who knows as much about the
subject of this newsgroup as anyone you'll find anywhere (and I don't
limit ``anywhere'' to mean just people posting to usenet). If _you_
were here to learn physics, why do you argue with the person who could
teach you the most about the subject when he corrects something you've
posted and then become self-righteous about people like androsleaze,
who is responsible for a sizable fraction of the garbage that clutters
this newsgroup? You'll have to do better than that, ken. That phony
indignation doesn't wash. If you want to learn something about physics,
then you better first learn to differentiate between physics and
the pathological ranting of people like androsleaze.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
12 Jan 2005 01:33:39 PM |
|
|
Bilge,
You've changed, you becoming a mini-dinky, Draper,
invited a convo with Andro, Andro is Draper's guest, you
insult Andro you insult Draper. Dinky started, you followed
for no particular reason. It's Draper's call, not yours or the
Dinks, and Draper is a good author, so why throw spit-balls
at his guest. You wouldn't do that around his camp-fire.
About learning, I've tried to explain to you Minkowski
spactime, you still don't have a clue, "cement head",
you haven't made first base in relativity.
I've learned alot from Dr. Carlip, he's clarified my thinking
and I hope I've helped him that way, we agree 99% but
quickly arrived at the 1% worthy of further thought. He's
a cutting-edge GRist, where my interest is, and is young
enough to learn what we don't know.
There is developing, a body of experimental evidence
suggesting a deeper understanding (reformation) of
GR, (Qchiang has written about that), that some are
considering, is required.
Just as Newton was an approximation to GR, it's looking
that GR is an approximation.
Dr. Carlip and I have not yet agreed on a common
definition of a vacuum. I showed a classical break-
down, in light of QT, how can we calculate the volume
T_uv is expected to apply to.
What I'm suggesting, is a wave-mechanical definition
of a vacuum for energy density.
The simple GR math may require some modification
to absorb that concept, specifically, the idea of defining
the metric tensor at a point looks obsolete, instead I
suggest the metric be defined by distinguishable geodesics.
That definition allows nonsymmetrical metrics, and subsumes
the potentials, which need relativity, and eliminates gauge
invariance, because voltage is real over a finite distance.
I have a limited time to read the NG, and crap interferes,
ridicule has it's place, but interference doesn't, bilge you
interfered, uncharacteristally.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
12 Jan 2005 01:44:49 PM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message news:1105558419.398481.6720@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Bilge,
You've changed, you becoming a mini-dinky, Draper,
invited a convo with Andro, Andro is Draper's guest, you
insult Andro you insult Draper. Dinky started, you followed
for no particular reason. It's Draper's call, not yours or the
Dinks, and Draper is a good author, so why throw spit-balls
at his guest. You wouldn't do that around his camp-fire.
If Paul wanted a guest for a private chat, he could
have used private email. He didn't use private email.
He used Usenet. Usenet is open. So I interfered.
So Bilge interfered. And then *you* interfered in *our*
private chat between Paul, Androfart, Bilge and myself.
You insult us. Now get lost and go ***** up some tensor
equations.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
12 Jan 2005 02:21:47 PM |
|
|
BULL to Dirk
Mr. Draper invited us to attend the conversation,
on the side-lines, and many hundreds who read
this NG, Draper has been posting good stuff for
years, why the ***** do you, (Hobba), and bilge butt
in, and ***** on his thread, get respect.
Why can't you relax and listen, and if not ignore.
Draper is a smart guy, so is Andro, though he's
stuck in a minor SR loop, that is somewhat typical
of many in swimming in a whirl-pool, you're the same
Dirk, except your stuck in "obsessive complusive"
as Richard Perry *politely* explained.
Look, imagine we in this NG are sitting around a
nice camp-fire, dogs cooking, a few warm women
in bikini's (or no) giggling, and dark sky over-head with
a breeze off the ocean to cool off our naked bodies
bathed in a rising full moon.
The clam-bakes, buried early in the AM are taken from the beach pit ,
roasted in leaves from local pyschedical trees,
THEN, some potato head (guess who I'm referring too),
takes these fine suculant clams, and shoots them at others'
who are quietly engaged in comparing ideas about the
vast universe, that has provided such magnificient feelings.
I hear "tj frazir" is planning a physics ho-down, on one of
his beach fronts, hope to see you there.
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
13 Jan 2005 04:05:13 AM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker,
Congratulations. You are the winner of the Golden Shovel Award
for january 2005 for that incredible bit of puffery you wrote.
Bilge,
You've changed, you becoming a mini-dinky, Draper,
invited a convo with Andro, Andro is Draper's guest, you
insult Andro you insult Draper. Dinky started, you followed
for no particular reason. It's Draper's call, not yours or the
Dinks, and Draper is a good author, so why throw spit-balls
at his guest. You wouldn't do that around his camp-fire.
Did he hire you as his spokesperson or are you simply a hypocrite?
About learning, I've tried to explain to you Minkowski
spactime, you still don't have a clue, "cement head",
you haven't made first base in relativity.
Given the choice between accepting your concept of minkowski space
or being a cement head and being correct, I'll opt for being a
cement head.
[blah, blah, blah...]
What I'm suggesting, is a wave-mechanical definition
of a vacuum for energy density.
Don't you think it would be a good idea to figure out what
those words mean, first?
[blah, blah, blah...]
That definition allows nonsymmetrical metrics, and subsumes
the potentials, which need relativity, and eliminates gauge
invariance, because voltage is real over a finite distance.
So, let me see... I hardly know where to begin, but basically,
you think general relativity needs to be reformulated in terms
of a non-symmetric metric because the reality of a non-relativistic,
non-quantum mechanical concept of voltage and the necessity of
not conserving charge demands it? You'll have to excuse if I say that
you are a bit out to lunch and had a bit too much jargon salad.
I have a limited time to read the NG, and crap interferes,
Then you might try pointing that out to readers like androsleaze
rather than encouraging him to continue posting crap. So long as
you solicit the posting of crap, I have a hard time taking your
complaint seriously.
ridicule has it's place, but interference doesn't, bilge you
interfered, uncharacteristally.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
13 Jan 2005 04:25:47 PM |
|
|
Bilge wrote:
Ken S. Tucker,
....
That definition allows nonsymmetrical metrics, and subsumes
the potentials, which need relativity, and eliminates gauge
invariance, because voltage is real over a finite distance.
So, let me see... I hardly know
You getting warm
where to begin, but basically,
you think general relativity needs to be reformulated in terms
of a non-symmetric metric because the reality of a non-relativistic,
non-quantum mechanical concept of voltage and the necessity of
not conserving charge demands it?
You're getting colder
....
I have a hard time
Bilge, one word, rectal dysfunction, try Viagra.
If you would take physics more seriously than a
*dabbler*, you might not be so frustrated.
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
13 Jan 2005 05:40:30 PM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1105655147.138668.36840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Bilge wrote:
Ken S. Tucker,
...
That definition allows nonsymmetrical metrics, and subsumes
the potentials, which need relativity, and eliminates gauge
invariance, because voltage is real over a finite distance.
So, let me see... I hardly know
You getting warm
where to begin, but basically,
you think general relativity needs to be reformulated in terms
of a non-symmetric metric because the reality of a non-relativistic,
non-quantum mechanical concept of voltage and the necessity of
not conserving charge demands it?
You're getting colder
...
I have a hard time
Bilge, one word, rectal dysfunction, try Viagra.
Viagra for constipation? Drastic.
It has side effects, y'know.
Bilge might end up being an even bigger *****.
Androcles.
If you would take physics more seriously than a
*dabbler*, you might not be so frustrated.
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
13 Jan 2005 06:14:16 PM |
|
|
Anything is possible....
I was worried he was using Viagra as a suppository,
Uncle AL likely has a photo of someone who did
that...
Notice I got bilge and dink off your case for a couple
of days, I was a line blocker in my younger days,
a so-called *lightning rod* for action.
Don't usually agree with what you say, but defend
your right to say it...that's what I was doing.
anyway back to physics....
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
13 Jan 2005 06:44:41 PM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1105661656.442778.309920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Anything is possible....
I was worried he was using Viagra as a suppository,
Uncle AL likely has a photo of someone who did
that...
Notice I got bilge and dink off your case for a couple
of days, I was a line blocker in my younger days,
a so-called *lightning rod* for action.
Don't usually agree with what you say, but defend
your right to say it...that's what I was doing.
anyway back to physics....
Ken
Well, thanks.. I suppose :)
I never read either one of them since they are both trolls, but
I appreciate the thought.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
13 Jan 2005 08:02:47 PM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker, Golden Shovel laureate,
where to begin, but basically,
you think general relativity needs to be reformulated in terms
of a non-symmetric metric because the reality of a non-relativistic,
non-quantum mechanical concept of voltage and the necessity of
not conserving charge demands it?
You're getting colder
I'm just translating what _you_ wrote. But, let's just go through it
line-by-line from your post:
You said: That definition allows nonsymmetrical metrics,
I translated: you think general relativity needs to be reformulated in
terms of a non-symmetric metric
I assume that was an accurate translation.
---
You said: voltage is real over a finite distance.
I translated: the reality of a non-relativistic, non-quantum mechanical
concept of voltage
Do you have problem with that transalation? Since voltage is neither
a quantum mechanical nor a relativistic concept, I can't imagine why
you would.
---
You said: and subsumes the potentials, which need relativity, and
eliminates gauge invariance,
I translated: the necessity of not conserving charge demands it
Which part of that doesn't accurately reflect eliminating a gauge
invariant potential? Here show me how it's done, starting with
gauge invariant, qed lagrangian and eliminating the gauge invariance:
_
L = u(p/ - m)u + j.A + (1/4) F^2
Or, if you want to start from bottom use the dirac lagrangian and
your non-symmetric metric to derive electromagnetism:
L = u(p/ - m)u
In either case, show that you've eliminated the gauge invariance
but contrary to what I said, charge is still conserved. Make sure
to define charge and the mass m consistent with experimental data.
Note that the `m' in each of the above equations does nor mean the
same thing.
In lieu of that, precisely what is your objection, which I notice
you didn't bother to state.
I have a hard time
Bilge, one word, rectal dysfunction, try Viagra.
If you associate viagra with rectal dysfunction, you should
probably pursue that on one of the newsgroups dealing with
alternative lifestyles, not sci.physics.relativity. You also
might try taking in an entire sentence so your replies don't
appear so much like replies to a question about a rorschach
ink blot.
If you would take physics more seriously than a *dabbler*, you
might not be so frustrated.
Since the psychology of physics crackpottery is psychology, not
physics, I suspect I will aways find it frustrating to with crackpots.
If that bothers you, don't be a crackpot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
14 Jan 2005 06:10:31 AM |
|
|
Bilge wrote:
Ken S. Tucker, Golden Shovel laureate,
I'm just translating what _you_ wrote. But, let's just go through
it
line-by-line from your post:
You said: That definition allows nonsymmetrical metrics,
I translated: you think general relativity needs to be reformulated
in
terms of a non-symmetric metric
I assume that was an accurate translation.
Absolutely, BTW that's Einstein's Theory.
---
You said: voltage is real over a finite distance.
I translated: the reality of a non-relativistic, non-quantum
mechanical
concept of voltage
Do you have problem with that transalation?
No problem...
Since voltage is neither
a quantum mechanical nor a relativistic concept, I can't imagine why
you would.
Voltage,
V_0 = q/x^0 = q/ct = q/r
---
You said: and subsumes the potentials, which need relativity, and
eliminates gauge invariance,
I translated: the necessity of not conserving charge demands it
Which part of that doesn't accurately reflect eliminating a gauge
invariant potential? Here show me how it's done, starting with
gauge invariant, qed lagrangian and eliminating the gauge invariance:
It's a package deal, it's consistent in it's
entirety.
1)The metric is defined by distinguishable geodesics.
2)A potential (voltage or gravitational) difference
requires distinguishable geodesics.
3)A nonsymmetrical metric is definable by the
relation of two distinguishable geodesics.
_
L = u(p/ - m)u + j.A + (1/4) F^2
This not applicable, that route has failed,
it only uses a point, there is no clear use
of relativity, it's aetherical.
Or, if you want to start from bottom use the dirac lagrangian and
your non-symmetric metric to derive electromagnetism:
L = u(p/ - m)u
Deriving EM is rather easy, SR can do that.
In either case, show that you've eliminated the gauge invariance
but contrary to what I said, charge is still conserved. Make sure
to define charge and the mass m consistent with experimental data.
Note that the `m' in each of the above equations does nor mean the
same thing.
In lieu of that, precisely what is your objection, which I notice
you didn't bother to state.
Relativity requires two FoR's, only their relation
counts for anything physical. The is no such thing
as relativity at a point. Gauge invariance is defined
at a point, it's not compatible with GR.
....
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
15 Jan 2005 04:15:36 AM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker:
Bilge wrote:
Ken S. Tucker, Golden Shovel laureate,
I'm just translating what _you_ wrote. But, let's just go through
it
line-by-line from your post:
You said: That definition allows nonsymmetrical metrics,
I translated: you think general relativity needs to be reformulated
in
terms of a non-symmetric metric
I assume that was an accurate translation.
Absolutely, BTW that's Einstein's Theory.
At least you recognize that much.
---
You said: voltage is real over a finite distance.
I translated: the reality of a non-relativistic, non-quantum
mechanical
concept of voltage
Do you have problem with that transalation?
No problem...
Then why did you refer to it in the first place?
Since voltage is neither a quantum mechanical nor a relativistic
concept, I can't imagine why you would.
Voltage,
V_0 = q/x^0 = q/ct = q/r
Wrong.
You said: and subsumes the potentials, which need relativity, and
eliminates gauge invariance,
I translated: the necessity of not conserving charge demands it
Which part of that doesn't accurately reflect eliminating a gauge
invariant potential? Here show me how it's done, starting with
gauge invariant, qed lagrangian and eliminating the gauge invariance:
It's a package deal, it's consistent in it's entirety.
Since non-conservation of charge has never been observed, it's
not consistent with reality.
1)The metric is defined by distinguishable geodesics.
2)A potential (voltage or gravitational) difference requires
distinguishable geodesics.
3)A nonsymmetrical metric is definable by the relation of two
distinguishable geodesics.
More word salad for lunch, ken?
_
L = u(p/ - m)u + j.A + (1/4) F^2
This not applicable, that route has failed,
Since ``that route'' is better verified experimentally than any other
``route'' in history and no measurement is in disagreement with that
``route,'' it can only have failed as being kooky enough for you use
it in your word salad.
it only uses a point, there is no clear use of relativity, it's aetherical.
You don't even know what it means, ken.
Or, if you want to start from bottom use the dirac lagrangian and
your non-symmetric metric to derive electromagnetism:
L = u(p/ - m)u
Deriving EM is rather easy, SR can do that.
It's apparently not easy enough for you to derive. You just rejected
the theory of E&M derived using special relativity, so not only can't
you derive it, you don't even recognize the result of the derivation.
[...]
In lieu of that, precisely what is your objection, which I notice
you didn't bother to state.
Relativity requires two FoR's,
Relativity requires no such thing.
only their relation counts for anything physical. The is no such thing
as relativity at a point. Gauge invariance is defined at a point, it's
not compatible with GR.
More gobbledy-gook.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
15 Jan 2005 12:54:00 PM |
|
|
Bilge wrote:
Ken S. Tucker:
Relativity requires two FoR's,
Relativity requires no such thing.
Bilge you're a closet aetherist...
stop self-relativating, you'll go blind.
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
15 Jan 2005 04:05:13 PM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1105815240.945860.110050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bilge wrote:
Ken S. Tucker:
Relativity requires two FoR's,
Relativity requires no such thing.
Bilge you're a closet aetherist...
stop self-relativating, you'll go blind.
Ken
Its a bit like saying a plane needs air to fly...
It requires no such thing! LOL!
I'm sure Bilge is either drunk or stoned when he replies like that.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
15 Jan 2005 05:02:10 PM |
|
|
Billge is a fucking idiot.
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
16 Jan 2005 12:07:37 PM |
|
|
Ken S. Tucker:
Billge is a fucking idiot.
Does that mean you consider celibacy a sign of genius?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
16 Jan 2005 04:09:26 PM |
|
|
Celibacy worked for Newton!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905 |
16 Jan 2005 04:20:37 PM |
|
|
In article <1105913366.514252.68720@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Ken S. Tucker <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
Celibacy worked for Newton!
Just imagine what Feynman might have accomplished if he had practiced it!
--
"A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance
our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
