An apology to Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 30 Jul 2010 21:42 On Jul 30, 8:46 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > On Jul 30, 8:34 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 30, 3:10 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > An apology to Androcles > > > > I had thought that the Einstein Expansion, proclaimed by Androcles in > > > sci.physics.relativity, was an error of confusing frames of > > > reference. But I was wrong. > > > > In his 1905 relativity paper, Einstein showed that x' = xi/gamma, > > > where x' is the length of a moving rod with respect to a stationary > > > frame of reference K and xi is the length of the moving rod with > > > respect to a frame k comoving with it. My difference with Androcles > > > was that I claimed that xi is the proper length L of the rod and the > > > shorter x' is a contracted length L/gamma. > > > > I thought that Androcles had these two backward. But no, he has > > > persuaded me otherwise; He agrees that x' is shorter than xi, but he > > > insists that x' is L and xi is an expanded length Lgamma. The proper > > > length of the rod in k increases because of the existence of another > > > frame of reference K moving with respect to it. (This other frame K is > > > called the "stationary" frame in Einstein's paper, but it can be > > > considered moving the other way with respect to the rest frame k of > > > the rod.) > > > > This startling fresh idea would never have occurred to me without > > > Androcles's guidance. > > > > It seems strange that a nearby frame of reference K, by its relative > > > motion, can expand a rod with respect to the rod's own proper frame k, > > > while the rod maintains a constant length with respect to K itself. > > > > Imagine me in a Concorde (k) flying over you on the ground (K) sucking > > > on my cigar that had length L when I bought it. It seems strange that > > > to you the cigar has length L, but because I am flying within your > > > frame of reference, my cigar is Lgamma long. In fact, because of your > > > frame of reference, the Concord is stretched by gamma for me but not > > > for you. I have no idea why my cigar is now longer, because I have no > > > idea that you are down there. > > > > It seems odd, doesn't it. Perhaps Androcles will explain it to us. > > > > Uncle Ben > > > In this rare instance of someone abandoning their constant delusional > > denial state of existence, any chance you can take it a step further > > and answer the following? > > > Will the ripple eventually reach the Earth? If not then why not? > > > 'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_featur... > > > "Astronomers using NASAs Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view > > of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two > > galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark matter, which is > > somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the > > water." > > > The ripple will eventually reach the Earth and this is evidence dark > > matter exists from the galaxy cluster to the Earth. This is evidence > > dark matter is the medium of space in which light waves propagate. > > > Pressure exerted towards matter by dark matter displaced by the matter > > is gravity.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I have no idea, and this thread is abought the Einstein Expansion. The ripple will eventually reach the Earth and this is evidence dark matter is the material of space.
From: Uncle Ben on 30 Jul 2010 22:49 On Jul 30, 9:39 pm, blackhead <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote: > On 31 July, 01:46, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 30, 8:34 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 30, 3:10 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > > An apology to Androcles > > > > > I had thought that the Einstein Expansion, proclaimed by Androcles in > > > > sci.physics.relativity, was an error of confusing frames of > > > > reference. But I was wrong. > > > > > In his 1905 relativity paper, Einstein showed that x' = xi/gamma, > > > > where x' is the length of a moving rod with respect to a stationary > > > > frame of reference K and xi is the length of the moving rod with > > > > respect to a frame k comoving with it. My difference with Androcles > > > > was that I claimed that xi is the proper length L of the rod and the > > > > shorter x' is a contracted length L/gamma. > > > > > I thought that Androcles had these two backward. But no, he has > > > > persuaded me otherwise; He agrees that x' is shorter than xi, but he > > > > insists that x' is L and xi is an expanded length Lgamma. The proper > > > > length of the rod in k increases because of the existence of another > > > > frame of reference K moving with respect to it. (This other frame K is > > > > called the "stationary" frame in Einstein's paper, but it can be > > > > considered moving the other way with respect to the rest frame k of > > > > the rod.) > > > > > This startling fresh idea would never have occurred to me without > > > > Androcles's guidance. > > > > > It seems strange that a nearby frame of reference K, by its relative > > > > motion, can expand a rod with respect to the rod's own proper frame k, > > > > while the rod maintains a constant length with respect to K itself. > > > > > Imagine me in a Concorde (k) flying over you on the ground (K) sucking > > > > on my cigar that had length L when I bought it. It seems strange that > > > > to you the cigar has length L, but because I am flying within your > > > > frame of reference, my cigar is Lgamma long. In fact, because of your > > > > frame of reference, the Concord is stretched by gamma for me but not > > > > for you. I have no idea why my cigar is now longer, because I have no > > > > idea that you are down there. > > > > > It seems odd, doesn't it. Perhaps Androcles will explain it to us. > > > > > Uncle Ben > > > > In this rare instance of someone abandoning their constant delusional > > > denial state of existence, any chance you can take it a step further > > > and answer the following? > > > > Will the ripple eventually reach the Earth? If not then why not? > > > > 'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_featur... > > > > "Astronomers using NASAs Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view > > > of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two > > > galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark matter, which is > > > somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the > > > water." > > > > The ripple will eventually reach the Earth and this is evidence dark > > > matter exists from the galaxy cluster to the Earth. This is evidence > > > dark matter is the medium of space in which light waves propagate. > > > > Pressure exerted towards matter by dark matter displaced by the matter > > > is gravity.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I have no idea, and this thread is abought the Einstein Expansion.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Androcles rechristened the space LT as "Einstein's expansion" formula: > > xi = x'/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) with x' = x-vt > 1905 paper. > Used correctly, it transforms x coordinates of the same event between > different frames, not lengths directly. Androcles plugs in lengths for > xi, x' without considering what's involved in measuring a length. For > a start, it involves measuring space coordinates at the *same* time > and subtracting them from one another to get a length, if it's moving > in that frame. If the end points remain at the same locations for all > time, then simultaneity doesn't matter.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Some ng history, Blackhead: This subject has been discussed often, and in some discussions Androcles ha progressed all the way to a length comparison, following Einstein's 1905 paper. I now believe he has got it all right except for the final step, which is assigning values to x' and xi. He agrees in the meaning of the variables x' and xi, including correctly that x' < xi. Where he goes off the track is to insist that x'=L, and therefore xi= Lgamma. The correct path is to assign xi=L and conclude that x' = L/gamma. The absurdity of this error is the point of this thread. Uncle Ben
From: eric gisse on 30 Jul 2010 23:31 Uncle Ben wrote: [...] The androcles lost the ability to reason with people long ago.
From: Androcles on 31 Jul 2010 00:02 "Uncle Ben" <ben(a)greenba.com> wrote in message news:e4c9ecfb-15fb-4e1f-8a01-93fd5efc56c1(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... On Jul 30, 8:34 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 30, 3:10 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > > > > An apology to Androcles > > > I had thought that the Einstein Expansion, proclaimed by Androcles in > > sci.physics.relativity, was an error of confusing frames of > > reference. But I was wrong. > > > In his 1905 relativity paper, Einstein showed that x' = xi/gamma, > > where x' is the length of a moving rod with respect to a stationary > > frame of reference K and xi is the length of the moving rod with > > respect to a frame k comoving with it. My difference with Androcles > > was that I claimed that xi is the proper length L of the rod and the > > shorter x' is a contracted length L/gamma. > > > I thought that Androcles had these two backward. But no, he has > > persuaded me otherwise; He agrees that x' is shorter than xi, but he > > insists that x' is L and xi is an expanded length Lgamma. The proper > > length of the rod in k increases because of the existence of another > > frame of reference K moving with respect to it. (This other frame K is > > called the "stationary" frame in Einstein's paper, but it can be > > considered moving the other way with respect to the rest frame k of > > the rod.) > > > This startling fresh idea would never have occurred to me without > > Androcles's guidance. > > > It seems strange that a nearby frame of reference K, by its relative > > motion, can expand a rod with respect to the rod's own proper frame k, > > while the rod maintains a constant length with respect to K itself. > > > Imagine me in a Concorde (k) flying over you on the ground (K) sucking > > on my cigar that had length L when I bought it. It seems strange that > > to you the cigar has length L, but because I am flying within your > > frame of reference, my cigar is Lgamma long. In fact, because of your > > frame of reference, the Concord is stretched by gamma for me but not > > for you. I have no idea why my cigar is now longer, because I have no > > idea that you are down there. > > > It seems odd, doesn't it. Perhaps Androcles will explain it to us. > > > Uncle Ben > > In this rare instance of someone abandoning their constant delusional > denial state of existence, any chance you can take it a step further > and answer the following? > > Will the ripple eventually reach the Earth? If not then why not? > > 'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark > Matter'http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_featur... > > "Astronomers using NASA�s Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view > of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two > galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark matter, which is > somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the > water." > > The ripple will eventually reach the Earth and this is evidence dark > matter exists from the galaxy cluster to the Earth. This is evidence > dark matter is the medium of space in which light waves propagate. > > Pressure exerted towards matter by dark matter displaced by the matter > is gravity.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I have no idea, and this thread is abought the Einstein Expansion. ============================================ Amazing... you are more of a gentleman than I ever gave you credit for, Bonehead. I shall cease referring to you as Napoleon Bonehead in deference to your new-found enlightenment.
From: Androcles on 31 Jul 2010 00:59
"Uncle Ben" <ben(a)greenba.com> wrote in message news:d43195e9-25ef-4d41-a9e9-7abd267e0345(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... On Jul 30, 9:39 pm, blackhead <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote: > On 31 July, 01:46, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 30, 8:34 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 30, 3:10 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > > An apology to Androcles > > > > > I had thought that the Einstein Expansion, proclaimed by Androcles > > > > in > > > > sci.physics.relativity, was an error of confusing frames of > > > > reference. But I was wrong. > > > > > In his 1905 relativity paper, Einstein showed that x' = xi/gamma, > > > > where x' is the length of a moving rod with respect to a stationary > > > > frame of reference K and xi is the length of the moving rod with > > > > respect to a frame k comoving with it. My difference with Androcles > > > > was that I claimed that xi is the proper length L of the rod and the > > > > shorter x' is a contracted length L/gamma. > > > > > I thought that Androcles had these two backward. But no, he has > > > > persuaded me otherwise; He agrees that x' is shorter than xi, but he > > > > insists that x' is L and xi is an expanded length Lgamma. The proper > > > > length of the rod in k increases because of the existence of another > > > > frame of reference K moving with respect to it. (This other frame K > > > > is > > > > called the "stationary" frame in Einstein's paper, but it can be > > > > considered moving the other way with respect to the rest frame k of > > > > the rod.) > > > > > This startling fresh idea would never have occurred to me without > > > > Androcles's guidance. > > > > > It seems strange that a nearby frame of reference K, by its relative > > > > motion, can expand a rod with respect to the rod's own proper frame > > > > k, > > > > while the rod maintains a constant length with respect to K itself. > > > > > Imagine me in a Concorde (k) flying over you on the ground (K) > > > > sucking > > > > on my cigar that had length L when I bought it. It seems strange > > > > that > > > > to you the cigar has length L, but because I am flying within your > > > > frame of reference, my cigar is Lgamma long. In fact, because of > > > > your > > > > frame of reference, the Concord is stretched by gamma for me but not > > > > for you. I have no idea why my cigar is now longer, because I have > > > > no > > > > idea that you are down there. > > > > > It seems odd, doesn't it. Perhaps Androcles will explain it to us. > > > > > Uncle Ben > > > > In this rare instance of someone abandoning their constant delusional > > > denial state of existence, any chance you can take it a step further > > > and answer the following? > > > > Will the ripple eventually reach the Earth? If not then why not? > > > > 'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark > > > Matter'http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_featur... > > > > "Astronomers using NASA�s Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view > > > of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two > > > galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark matter, which is > > > somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the > > > water." > > > > The ripple will eventually reach the Earth and this is evidence dark > > > matter exists from the galaxy cluster to the Earth. This is evidence > > > dark matter is the medium of space in which light waves propagate. > > > > Pressure exerted towards matter by dark matter displaced by the matter > > > is gravity.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I have no idea, and this thread is abought the Einstein Expansion.- Hide > > quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Androcles rechristened the space LT as "Einstein's expansion" formula: > > xi = x'/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) with x' = x-vt > 1905 paper. > Used correctly, it transforms x coordinates of the same event between > different frames, not lengths directly. Androcles plugs in lengths for > xi, x' without considering what's involved in measuring a length. For > a start, it involves measuring space coordinates at the *same* time > and subtracting them from one another to get a length, if it's moving > in that frame. If the end points remain at the same locations for all > time, then simultaneity doesn't matter.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Some ng history, Blackhead: This subject has been discussed often, and in some discussions Androcles ha progressed all the way to a length comparison, following Einstein's 1905 paper. I now believe he has got it all right except for the final step, which is assigning values to x' and xi. He agrees in the meaning of the variables x' and xi, including correctly that x' < xi. Where he goes off the track is to insist that x'=L, and therefore xi= Lgamma. The correct path is to assign xi=L and conclude that x' = L/gamma. The absurdity of this error is the point of this thread. Uncle Ben ====================================== Well, as you know, Bonehead, Wackypedia makes use of Pythagoras and a light clock to explain time dilation. B |\ | \ | \ c' | \ | \ |_____\ A v-> A' Because "everybody knows" (your favourite method of proof) that the speed of light is c on the path AB and also c on the path BA' we'll label the vertical edge as c and the hypotenuse as c'. Then by Pythagoras c' = sqrt (c^2 +v^2). Now, because "everybody knows" the sides of a right triangle are 3, 4 and 5 because c = 4 and v = 3 and c' = 5, and it takes time t for light to travel from A to B and "everybody knows" It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary system we call it ``the time of the stationary system'' we'll set t = 1. We could set it to 2, but then the triangle would be a 6,8,10 triangle which would be a "similar" triangle. To get the speed right, we'll multiply AB by t = 1 to give ct = 4, multiply AA' by t = 1 to give vt = 3, and BA' by tau = 1.25 to give c' = 4. So tau = 1.25 and that means c' = c/tau = 5/1.25 = 4 as "everybody knows". However, c = 2AB/(t'A-tA) (Einstein's definition of the speed of light) and In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if tB-tA = tA-t'B, tB-tA = 1 as we said and tA-t'B = 1.25 as we calculated, so 1 = 1.25. The absurdity of this error is the point of this thread. That's where you go off the rails. |