Some troubling assumptions of SR

"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message ...
Lester Zick says...

Einstein's postulate of an isotropically
constant relative c requires a variably dependent spatial geometry.

No, it doesn't.

There is no special mystery about this. It's in the source document.
In order to comply with FLT and his postulate of an isotropically
constant relative c, spatial geometry in the direction of v must be
contracted by a second order function of v.

You are confused. Time dilation and length contraction are
effects involving transformations between two different
inertial coordinate systems. Look at the analogous transformation
in Euclidean coordinates. You have one coordinate system with
coordinates x and y. In another coordinate system rotated relative
to the first, the coordinates are x' and y' related to x and y
through

x' = x cos(theta) + y sin(theta)
y' = y cos(theta) - x sin(theta)

To see the analogy with the Lorentz transformations more clearly,
let's introduce a parameter m = tan(theta). This is the "slope"
of the x' axis measured relative to the x axis. In terms of m,
we have

x' = 1/square-root(1+m^2) (x + m y)
y' = 1/square-root(1+m^2) (y - m x)

Would you say that in the rotated coordinate system,
that the x' axis is "contracted" by an amount related
to the slope m? No, not at all. Rotating a coordinate
system by a slope m doesn't cause it to contract any
more than moving it at speed v does in Special Relativity.

You seem very confused.

Perhaps, just not as confused as yourself, Daryl.

I'm confused about a good many things, but Special
Relativity is not one of them. On this particular
subject, you don't know what you are talking about
and I do. I'm sure there is a topic where you know
what you are talking about, but physics apparently
is not one of them.

--
Daryl McCullough

Daryl, you are talking technically to a troll.
That does not work :-)

Dirk Vdm

"Dork Van de merde" aka
"Dork Van de psychopath",
"Dork Van de psychotic fumble mumbler",
"Dork Van de ****head",
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...
[anip]
Solve the following differential equation:
x''+(c/x^2)=0
Solve for x in terms of t.

Assuming x(t0) = x0 and x'(t0) = v0, see
http://groups.google.com/group/nl.we...3dead300de9aa3
to reduce this to
x' = sqrt( v0^2 - 2 c (1/x0 - 1/x ) )
which is another 'simple' differential equation.
Just write it as
dx / sqrt( v0^2 - 2 c (1/x0 - 1/x ) ) = dt
and integrate between t0 and t to find t(x).
Then 'simply' invert to find x(t) ;-)

Dirk Vdm



http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...insEvents.html
"We use 3 inertial reference frames" [because Dorks can't get the result
they want in two].
"In neither of these frames any form of acceleration is felt" [neither one
of
all three].
"In order for the travelling twin to make HIS trip, SHE must be in frame S'
while going away".
"if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will have aged
10 years".

Belgium is where the farts blow.

"Your conclusion is dead wrong.
Start over, but skip the first part and the conclusion." -- Dork Van de
****head.

"You made a mistake" -- Dork Van de psychotic fumble mumbler.

ASSistant professor Paul B. Andersen, tusseladd:

"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)"

Dirk Van de moortel says...

Daryl, you are talking technically to a troll.
That does not work :-)

I thought that the terminology "troll" meant someone who made
intentionally provocative posts just to get a rise out of people.
Someone who actually believes (mistakenly) that he has some
insight into a subject isn't a troll, he's just confused.

I think Lester is just confused. Of the various sci.physics.relativity
personalities, I would only call Androcless a troll. He probably
believes that he has special insight, as well, but he posts his
profanities just to get a rise out of people.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel says...

Daryl, you are talking technically to a troll.
That does not work :-)

I thought that the terminology "troll" meant someone who made
intentionally provocative posts just to get a rise out of people.

It is my experience that this is exactly what he is doing.
On top of that he tries to make you believe that he is just
confused - by stressing that you are just confused :-)

Someone who actually believes (mistakenly) that he has some
insight into a subject isn't a troll, he's just confused.

I think Lester is just confused. Of the various sci.physics.relativity
personalities, I would only call Androcless a troll. He probably
believes that he has special insight, as well, but he posts his
profanities just to get a rise out of people.

If you also take into account what they obviously think but
don't write, then I estimate the fraction of trolls on these
groups amounts to about 30%.
But it takes quite some experience to have a reasonably
accurate idea about the motives behind what you see...

Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel says...

Daryl, you are talking technically to a troll.
That does not work :-)

I thought that the terminology "troll" meant someone who made
intentionally provocative posts just to get a rise out of people.

It is my experience that this is exactly what he is doing.
On top of that he tries to make you believe that he is just
confused - by stressing that you are just confused :-)

Can you give some evidence for this? I haven't seen any such evidence on
sci.math.

Someone who actually believes (mistakenly) that he has some
insight into a subject isn't a troll, he's just confused.

I think Lester is just confused. Of the various sci.physics.relativity
personalities, I would only call Androcless a troll. He probably
believes that he has special insight, as well, but he posts his
profanities just to get a rise out of people.

If you also take into account what they obviously think but
don't write,

How do you do that?

--
David Marcus

"David Marcus" wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel says...

Daryl, you are talking technically to a troll.
That does not work :-)

I thought that the terminology "troll" meant someone who made
intentionally provocative posts just to get a rise out of people.

It is my experience that this is exactly what he is doing.
On top of that he tries to make you believe that he is just
confused - by stressing that you are just confused :-)

Can you give some evidence for this? I haven't seen any such evidence on sci.math.

sci.physics.*


Someone who actually believes (mistakenly) that he has some
insight into a subject isn't a troll, he's just confused.

I think Lester is just confused. Of the various sci.physics.relativity
personalities, I would only call Androcless a troll. He probably
believes that he has special insight, as well, but he posts his
profanities just to get a rise out of people.

If you also take into account what they obviously think but
don't write,

How do you do that?

6 years of experience.

Dirk Vdm

On 12 Feb 2007 04:07:26 -0800, (Daryl
McCullough) wrote:

Dirk Van de moortel says...

Daryl, you are talking technically to a troll.
That does not work :-)

I thought that the terminology "troll" meant someone who made
intentionally provocative posts just to get a rise out of people.
Someone who actually believes (mistakenly) that he has some
insight into a subject isn't a troll, he's just confused.

I think Lester is just confused. Of the various sci.physics.relativity
personalities, I would only call Androcless a troll. He probably
believes that he has special insight, as well, but he posts his
profanities just to get a rise out of people.

Well, Daryl, this is a reasonable spin on trolling etc. The problem I
have is that I say "A" and you say "no not A but B" and there is no
way to judge either position in terms of the other. DvdM just got
upset with me because I declined to acknowledge his take on clocks as
if it were gospel.

I'm going to reply to your collateral post separately however let me
ask you a simple question. Given three bodies A, B, and C with A and B
stationary with respect to one another and C in motion with respect to
A and B are A and B in the same SR frame of reference with each other
and is C in the same or different SR frame of reference?

To my way of thinking A and B are in a common SR frame of reference
and C is in a different frame of reference because C is at a different
velocity from A and B and second order relative velocity determines a
frame of reference in SR.And if second order relative velocity doesn't
determine a frame of reference in SR then how does the square root of
1-vv/cc apply to a frame of reference in SR to determine contraction
and provide for an isotropically constant relative c and explain null
results of relative motion experiments such as Michelson-Morley?

~v~~

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:52:12 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message ...
Lester Zick says...

Einstein's postulate of an isotropically
constant relative c requires a variably dependent spatial geometry.

No, it doesn't.

There is no special mystery about this. It's in the source document.
In order to comply with FLT and his postulate of an isotropically
constant relative c, spatial geometry in the direction of v must be
contracted by a second order function of v.

You are confused. Time dilation and length contraction are
effects involving transformations between two different
inertial coordinate systems. Look at the analogous transformation
in Euclidean coordinates. You have one coordinate system with
coordinates x and y. In another coordinate system rotated relative
to the first, the coordinates are x' and y' related to x and y
through

x' = x cos(theta) + y sin(theta)
y' = y cos(theta) - x sin(theta)

To see the analogy with the Lorentz transformations more clearly,
let's introduce a parameter m = tan(theta). This is the "slope"
of the x' axis measured relative to the x axis. In terms of m,
we have

x' = 1/square-root(1+m^2) (x + m y)
y' = 1/square-root(1+m^2) (y - m x)

Would you say that in the rotated coordinate system,
that the x' axis is "contracted" by an amount related
to the slope m? No, not at all. Rotating a coordinate
system by a slope m doesn't cause it to contract any
more than moving it at speed v does in Special Relativity.

You seem very confused.

Perhaps, just not as confused as yourself, Daryl.

I'm confused about a good many things, but Special
Relativity is not one of them. On this particular
subject, you don't know what you are talking about
and I do. I'm sure there is a topic where you know
what you are talking about, but physics apparently
is not one of them.

--
Daryl McCullough

Daryl, you are talking technically to a troll.
That does not work :-)

Neither do your clocks, Dutch.

~v~~

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:42:11 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel says...

Daryl, you are talking technically to a troll.
That does not work :-)

I thought that the terminology "troll" meant someone who made
intentionally provocative posts just to get a rise out of people.

It is my experience that this is exactly what he is doing.
On top of that he tries to make you believe that he is just
confused - by stressing that you are just confused :-)

Of course Daryl didn't stress that I was confused to begin with.
Frankly, Dutch, I think you've been spending a little too much time
with the clocks and you're beginning to go a little cookoo on us.

Someone who actually believes (mistakenly) that he has some
insight into a subject isn't a troll, he's just confused.

I think Lester is just confused. Of the various sci.physics.relativity
personalities, I would only call Androcless a troll. He probably
believes that he has special insight, as well, but he posts his
profanities just to get a rise out of people.

If you also take into account what they obviously think but
don't write, then I estimate the fraction of trolls on these
groups amounts to about 30%.

And of course you're not a troll because you tow the party line.

But it takes quite some experience to have a reasonably
accurate idea about the motives behind what you see...

Which is undoubtedly something you have plenty of especially since you
argue clocks but can't tell us what a clock actually is. Basically in
your position a troll is anyone who argues with your definition of
clocks. Cookoo! Cookoo! In other words you're a crackpot.

~v~~

"David Marcus" wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel says...

Daryl, you are talking technically to a troll.
That does not work :-)

I thought that the terminology "troll" meant someone who made
intentionally provocative posts just to get a rise out of people.

It is my experience that this is exactly what he is doing.
On top of that he tries to make you believe that he is just
confused - by stressing that you are just confused :-)

Can you give some evidence for this? I haven't seen any such evidence on
sci.math.

Meanwhile you have your evidence :-)

Dirk Vdm