A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Use a radioactive eyepiece!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 3rd 13, 01:53 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default Use a radioactive eyepiece!

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...

On Jan 30, 8:46 pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jan 30, 5:22 pm, RichA wrote:

The Kodak Ektamate and Ektar lenses all use thorium glass. Pretty
harmless just sitting around but I wouldn't want to press my eye to
one for any length of time.


http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/l3759.html


There once were some World War II lenses that used radioactive glass,
but that is long gone. Any surplus from the days of digital Group III
fax machines would not use lenses made from that kind of glass -
because the glass isn't made any more.


I see that some radioactive glass was used even in the 1960s, so I'm
mistaken...

http://www.bnphoto.org/bnphoto/LostS...adioactive.htm

John Savard
=================================================
Good that you can admit it, Savard. It's really quite painless, isn't it?
Nobody is going to beat you to death over it now. You are mistaken
about relativity, too, but that's because you are hopeless at algebra.
Your pal Bill Owen hasn't come to your rescue, either. He's gone away
to think about it. He's only been gone three weeks. Perhaps he's gone
away to forget about it.


"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
(begin quote)
At the end of Section 3 we find the transformation derived:

tau=beta(t-vx/c^2),
xi=beta(x-vt),
eta=y,
zeta=z,
where beta=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

With trivial algebraic manipulation we can derive the inverse
transformation:

t=beta(tau+v(xi)/c^2),
x=beta(xi+v(tau)),
y=eta,
z=zeta.
(end quote)
===============================================
Not only is Savard hopeless at simple algebra, he quotes the drool of some
unnamed moron who is equally hopeless.
Perhaps he can show, step-by-step, his trivial derivation, like this:
xi = beta(x-vt)
Divide both sides of the equation by beta
xi/beta = beta(x-vt)/beta
Since beta/beta = 1,
xi/beta = 1*(x-vt)
Add vt to both sides of the equation
xi/beta +vt = (x-vt)+vt
Since vt - vt = 0,
x = xi/beta +vt

Why is Savard multiplying xi by beta instead of dividing?

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is earths polar regiones radioactive? Sam Wormley[_2_] Policy 21 April 12th 12 05:35 AM
What if(on radioactive Shrimp) bert Misc 21 July 7th 10 06:09 PM
Radioactive Decay For night lighting ??? G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] Misc 1 April 6th 07 09:00 AM
Radioactive Fuel and Inner Planets Christian Ramos Policy 5 November 15th 04 07:09 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.