"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
: The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
: In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
:
: wrote
: on Sun, 02 Sep 2007 11:10:04 GMT
: :
: "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message
: ...
: : In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
: :
: : wrote
: : on Sat, 01 Sep 2007 14:03:45 GMT
: : :
: :
: : "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in
message
: : ...
: : : Androcles wrote:
: : : "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in
message
: : : ...
: : : : Androcles wrote:
: : : : "Paul B. Andersen" wrote
in
: : message
: : : : ...
: : : : : Henri Wilson wrote:
: : : : : Explain the 90 deg phase lag then George.
: : : : :
: : : : : Not hard at all to explain why the curves are different.
: : : : : If the radius of the star didn't change, it is obvious
: : : : : from Planck's blackbody equation that the luminosity
: : : : : variation due to the changing temperature is much
: : : : : bigger in visible light (V-band) than it is in IR (K-band
: 2.2u).
: : : :
: : : : Everything is "obvious". Obviously you are a lunatic.
: : : :
: : : : I note with a yawn that Androcles doesn't find the obvious
: : : : consequence of Planck's black body radiation law to be
obvious.
: : : :
: : : : Nothing is obvious in a haze, is it?
: : :
: : : ASSistant Professor "Paul B. Andersen"
of :
: : : Agder University College (HiA)
: : : Serviceboks 422, N-4604 Kristiansand, NORWAY Tel (+47) 38 14 10
00
: Fax
: : : (+47) 38 14 10 01
: : : has executed the biggest fumble ever seen in the history of
: : : sci.physics.relativity
: : : in message
: : : ...
: : :
: : : "The spectral class [of stars] is determined by the relative
: positions
: : : and intensities
: : : of the absorption lines, and these are unaffected by a Doppler
: shift."
: : :
: : : The all time classic:
: : :
: : : "That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
: : : which is the same as interchanging the frames,
: : : which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
: : : OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
: : : t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : : x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : : or:
: : : tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : : xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
: : :
: : :
: : The faster you go the longer it takes to get there, OBVIOUSLY.
: : yawn
: :
: : Here's how I look at it.
:
: [snip wrong argument]
:
: ... reach the star, d-vt = 0.
:
: The Andersen Transforms are d+vt 0.
: The faster you go the longer it takes to get there, OBVIOUSLY.
: yawn
:
: Since I was assuming a different transform:
:
: xi = (x - vt) * g
: tau = (t - vx/c^2) * g
:
: this doesn't quite work. However, I'd have to dig through
: the posts to see what Paul was claiming and your objections
: thereto, and I'd highly prefer a different nomenclature anyway,
: something along the following lines.
:
: What I claim should be quite clear from Androcles'
: correct quotation, even if it is quoted out of context.
:
: The LT as written i Einstein's 1905 paper is:
: tau = (t - xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: xi = (x - vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: or:
: t = (tau + xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: x = (xi + v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
:
: Here the origin of the "Greek frame" is moving along
: the positive x-axis of the "Latin frame" with speed v.
:
: But alternatively we could let the origin of the "Latin frame"
: move along the positive xi-axis of the "Greek frame".
:
: "That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
: which is the same as interchanging the frames,
: which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
: OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
: t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: or:
: tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)"
:
: This is but an obvious triviality, and Androcles'
: 'objectons thereto' are so nonsensical that they
: are not worth wasting your time at.
:
: Or mine.
:
: Paul

S-frame:
Let c = 1, v = 0.5, x = 0.866.
t = x/v = 1.732 years

E-frame:
tau = 1.655 years t




S-frame:
Let c = 1, v = 0.866, t = 1 year.
x = vt = 0.866 as before

E-frame:
tau = (1.75 /1^2)/ 0.5 = 3.5 years t

The faster you go the longer it takes to get there.
Check with a spreadsheet:
x v t tau t/tau
0.866 0.100 8.660 1.092 7.930
0.866 0.200 4.330 1.197 3.616
0.866 0.300 2.887 1.321 2.186
0.866 0.400 2.165 1.469 1.474
0.866 0.500 1.732 1.655 1.047
0.866 0.600 1.443 1.900 0.760
0.866 0.700 1.237 2.249 0.550
0.866 0.800 1.083 2.821 0.384
0.866 0.866 1.000 3.500 0.286
0.866 0.900 0.962 4.082 0.236
0.866 0.990 0.875 13.167 0.066
0.866 0.999 0.867 41.717 0.021


This is but an obvious stupidity, and Tusseladd's
'idiocies thereto' are so nonsensical that they
are not worth wasting your time at -- but what else is
there to do except laugh at stupidity and incompetence?