A Perpetual Calendar that Respects the Week

"oriel36" wrote in message
...

On Jan 6, 8:46 pm, badastrobuster wrote:
Notice how carefully Oriel, over a period of some years, has avoided
explaining exactly where his views and the views of other members of
this group differ. He writes whole paragraphs - sometimes nultiple
paragraphs - hundreds of times a year but refuses to explain something
as basic as this.

He also refuses to answer any questions designed to identify what the
difference might be.

As an example - Oriel, if you look due south at midnight on July 1st
and again at midnight on January 1st of the next year will you see the
same stars in the same places.

Yes or no?

I wouldn't expect anyone else to share the load,God knows it becomes
intolerable,but the least this community can do is to stop more damage
being done as they try to morph to another fabricated story of an
idealized rotation once in 24 hours back in 1820.There are students
out there who can easily grasp the foundations of timekeeping and how
they connect to the planetary cycles,an advanced student may even come
to understand the technical ins and outs of how they jumped the tracks
with right ascension,but it all depends on sharing the load rather
than this crime of silence.

There is nothing more I could do even if I wanted to continue but that
is where somebody else begins and God bless them in their endeavor.
================================================== ==========
Is that a yes or is that a no, Kelleher?

-- 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.

On Jan 6, 12:59*pm, oriel36 wrote:

I wouldn't expect anyone else to share the load, God knows it becomes
intolerable, but the least this community can do

The trouble is, *if* we believed that what you were saying was true,
we would help share the load of spreading the news. But since we
don't, we would likely believe that doing anything to help your
efforts in any way would be hurtful to the truth...

is to stop more damage
being done as they try to morph to another fabricated story of an
idealized rotation once in 24 hours back in 1820.

however, you don't have to worry about this one happening. The claim
that the Earth rotates in 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds is not
being abandoned or modified in any way.

Yes, occasionally, the complication required to fully acknowledge the
Earth's orbital motions is sometimes set aside, and the 24 hour solar
day compound motion is referred to as a 'rotation' of the Earth when
the Earth's orbital motion is not directly relevant to the subject
under discussion. This isn't something new, people have been doing
this for the last hundred years from time to time.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/science/eot.htm

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...

On Jan 6, 12:59 pm, oriel36 wrote:

I wouldn't expect anyone else to share the load, God knows it becomes
intolerable, but the least this community can do

The trouble is, *if* we believed that what you were saying was true,
we would help share the load of spreading the news. But since we
don't, we would likely believe that doing anything to help your
efforts in any way would be hurtful to the truth...
================================================== =============
The truth is if xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and if tau =
(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
then upsilon = xi/tau v and that would be hurtful to reason, but an
idiot like
you, Savant, is likely to believe Einstein's crap and spread nonsense just
like
Kelleher. Of course you are totally incapable of understanding anything I've
said,
simple algebra is beyond a ****ing hypocrite like you.


-- 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.

badastrobuster
Notice how carefully Oriel...

No, because he's in my kill-file. Say hello to him in there for me.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Jan 6, 2:46*pm, badastrobuster wrote:
Notice how carefully Oriel, over a period of some years, has avoided
explaining exactly where his views and the views of other members of
this group differ. He writes whole paragraphs - sometimes nultiple
paragraphs - hundreds of times a year but refuses to explain something
as basic as this.

He also refuses to answer any questions designed to identify what the
difference might be.

As an example - Oriel, if you look due south at midnight on July 1st
and again at midnight on January 1st of the next year will you see the
same stars in the same places.

Yes or no?

It would be interesting to see if "Oriole" could get by a CAPTCHA (not
practical on USENET.)

On Jan 6, 4:02*pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote:

The truth is if

xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

and if

tau = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

then upsilon = xi/tau * v

Yes, since upsilon clearly equals ((c^2)(x-vt))/(t-vx), and there's no
reason to expect that to equal v.

and that would be hurtful to reason

Why? I seem to recall formulas like these in a post of yours, a reply
to which explained that you were using one formula that was wrong in
your calculations, maybe due to a typographical error in a book on
relativity.

I know that the formulas for special relativity didn't contradict
themselves; if they had, I wouldn't have been able to do my Physics
351 homework.

John Savard

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...

On Jan 6, 4:02 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote:

The truth is if

xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

and if

tau = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

then upsilon = xi/tau v

Yes, since upsilon clearly equals ((c^2)(x-vt))/(t-vx), and there's no
reason to expect that to equal v.

and that would be hurtful to reason

Why?
===================================
Just set v = 0.866c so that sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = 2 and 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = 0.5
Let t = 1, x = 1.866, then

tau = t/2 = 0.5 and xi = 2 * (x-vt) = 2, upsilon = 2/0.5 = 4c which
contradicts SR.
Nothing can travel at 4c according to SR so its hurtful to reason, that's
why.


-- 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.

On Jan 6, 10:09*pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote:
"Quadibloc" *wrote in message

...

On Jan 6, 4:02 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"

wrote:
The truth is if
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
and if
tau = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
then upsilon = xi/tau * v

Yes, since upsilon clearly equals ((c^2)(x-vt))/(t-vx), and there's no
reason to expect that to equal v.

and that would be hurtful to reason

Why?
===================================
Just set v = 0.866c so that sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = 2 and 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = 0.5
Let t = 1, x = 1.866, then

tau = t/2 = 0.5 and xi = 2 * (x-vt) = 2, upsilon = 2/0.5 = 4c which
contradicts SR.
Nothing can travel at 4c according to SR so its hurtful to reason, that's
why.

A short web search shows that you have already been given the correct
answer:

(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)

Now, v is the same in both reference frames. One is moving with speed
v relative to the other.

x/t isn't necessarily v at this point, because x could be anything.
These are formulas defining a whole coordinate system, not describing
a specific moving particle.

If x is zero at time zero, for some object moving at velocity v, then
indeed for nonzero times, x/t equals v.

What would xi/tau be?

Well, it should be zero. Because xi and tau are coordinates in a
system moving right along with that object moving at velocity v, so
from that point of view, it's standing still!

So you would be right that xi/tau being 2c would not make sense.

John Savard

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...

On Jan 6, 10:09 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote:
"Quadibloc" wrote in message

...

On Jan 6, 4:02 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"

wrote:
The truth is if
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
and if
tau = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
then upsilon = xi/tau v

Yes, since upsilon clearly equals ((c^2)(x-vt))/(t-vx), and there's no
reason to expect that to equal v.

and that would be hurtful to reason

Why?
===================================
Just set v = 0.866c so that sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = 2 and 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) =
0.5
Let t = 1, x = 1.866, then

tau = t/2 = 0.5 and xi = 2 * (x-vt) = 2, upsilon = 2/0.5 = 4c which
contradicts SR.
Nothing can travel at 4c according to SR so its hurtful to reason, that's
why.

A short web search shows that you have already been given the correct
answer:

(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),
========================================
We don't need to know t, it is hurtful to reason.

With trivial algebraic manipulation already done for us by Einstein in
section 4:
tau = t * sqrt( 1-v^2/c^2)
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img61.gif
so quit talking out of your arse, it is hurtful to reason. You are babbling
worse
than Kelleher now.

x=beta(xi+v(tau)),
==============================================
Is that what you call algebraic manipulation?
How trivially foolish,
xi = beta * (x-vt) so
x-vt = xi/beta
and x = xi/beta + vt

Now, v is the same in both reference frames.
=========================================
So it might be, but if v = x/t then upsilon = xi/tau and as you've already
confirmed the planet comes to the ship (upsilon) faster than the ship comes
to the planet (v). You are definitely far worse than Kelleher, totally
injurious to reason.

-- 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.

It always amazes me that not very much time elapses before the Or***
subject gets resurrected once again.

It has been suggested not just once, but many times, to add this aloof
guy to your rejection filters.

It has been suggested not just once, but many times, to ignore this
aloof guy's posts because of their meaningless content.

It has been suggested not just once, but many times, that trying to have
a conversation with this guy ends up taking up unnecessary Internet
bandwidth.

It has been suggested not just once, but many times, that continuing to
reply to these unnecessary posts defeats the purpose of the kill filters
for those sensible among us who don't want to see his or others
worthless posts.

Need I go on, or has the point been made, and made, and MADE AGAIN!

I think some of you must be caught in a quantum reality where the
uncertainty principle doesn't apply because if it did, the mere mention
of this non-matching atomic signature would have gone against the
scientific principles present within your reality. Obviously, these
types of quantum realities must exist, but I don't have to subscribe to
them.

Bottom line for all who keep the Or*** phenomenon alive.... get a life,
either within the current space-time continuum or an alternate one where
the quantum realities don't overlap.