An apology to Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 31 Jul 2010 10:33 "Uncle Ben" <ben(a)greenba.com> wrote in message news:2b0aa804-9439-45c9-81ee-574215f56cbb(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... On Jul 30, 11:31 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Uncle Ben wrote: > > [...] > > The androcles lost the ability to reason with people long ago. You may be right, Eric. It takes integrity to admit error. ====================================== Yes, it does, and you don't have any integrity. Never did and never will.
From: Androcles on 31 Jul 2010 10:31 "Uncle Ben" <ben(a)greenba.com> wrote in message news:0a859d63-f376-44d4-8595-7c849c4b343b(a)w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... On Jul 31, 9:35 am, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 31, 2:15 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 31, 8:36 am, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 31, 3:49 am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > I have been led through all this a few months ago, line at a time of > > > the relevant section of the 1905 paper, by Androcles. Thank you > > > Androcles. But my memory of the details have faded. > > > > OK, so Androcles is finding that Einstein's beta is 2 for v = 0.866c. > > > In other words, the length of a rod measured in frame k (using xi and > > > tau) is twice as big as it would be if measured in frame K (using x > > > and t). That's fine isn't it? > > > The rod is stationary withinin frame k so its length is easily > > > measured as L within frame k. (Einstein's paper uses x' instead of L.) > > > So xi=L gives the rod length in frame k. > > > Now what is the rod length in frame K? Since xi=2x, then x=0.5L. Ie > > > we see the moving rod as shorter than it is measured in its rest > > > frame.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Yes, namesake, the length in k is twice the length in K. The question > > is, are they 2L and L, or L and L/2. You (and everyone except > > Androcles) correctly argue for the latter. > > > The former is absurd, since there are many conceivable K's existing > > simultaneously, each for a different v. For each, there is a different > > length xi w.r.t. k, which requires that xi have many values > > simultaneously. > > > In the latter case, which you argue persuasively, xi is fixed at L, > > and for conceivable K there is its own contracted x'= L/gamma. > > > Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > OK, I see, the question is whether it is L and 2L or L/2 and L? > > L cannot be measured with a ruler in frame K as the rod is moving in > frame K. > So it must be measured within frame k, by someone in frame k, with say > a ruler. > Noone in frame k is going to measure it and say that it is 2 times 3 > feet long. They would instead say it is 6 feet long. L = 6 feet. > > In frame K the length of the rod is calculated as L/2 = 3 feet. > > I don't see where 2L arises as it does not occur in the calculation of > x (from a given a value of xi) and it is not a ruler measurement of > xi? > > It can only be 2L if the formula is used to calculate xi from a given > value of x, and that cannot happen as noone is in a position to > measure rod length x with a ruler in frame K (as th erod is moving) > and then apply the formula to calculate xi. xi is measured with a > ruler. x is calculated from the formula.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You argue from the possibility of measurement; I argue from uniqueness of result. ================================ You argue from stupidity. I argue from this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E and from this: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Your namesake, Bonehead6993, has never done either. ================================ Let us see how much integrity John has left. ================================ Coming from someone making a false apology, that's rich.
From: Uncle Ben on 31 Jul 2010 10:40 On Jul 31, 9:34 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:04c03713-3840-4dd5-b9bd-0a32c3298392(a)w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 31, 3:49 am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I have been led through all this a few months ago, line at a time of > the relevant section of the 1905 paper, by Androcles. Thank you > Androcles. But my memory of the details have faded. > > OK, so Androcles is finding that Einstein's beta is 2 for v = 0.866c. > In other words, the length of a rod measured in frame k (using xi and > tau) is twice as big as it would be if measured in frame K (using x > and t). That's fine isn't it? > The rod is stationary withinin frame k so its length is easily > measured as L within frame k. (Einstein's paper uses x' instead of L.) > So xi=L gives the rod length in frame k. > Now what is the rod length in frame K? Since xi=2x, then x=0.5L. Ie > we see the moving rod as shorter than it is measured in its rest frame. > ================================================= > You are wanking your brain to agree with your prejudice. > > "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.'' > "Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be L as > measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary." > > So > tau = t/2 , moving clocks run slow. > xi = 2L, moving rods grow longer. > > xi does not equal L, xi = 2L. > Ie we see the moving rod as LONGER than it is measured in THE rest frame. > End of fuckin' story, no further mental masturbation needed.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You skip over the essential part of the story. I cannot teach you how to read, so I will leave you with a rod at rest in k with, in your version, different lengths depending on what OTHER frame K from an infinite collection of K's you choose to IMAGINE. You have a rod with an infinite number of lengths simultaneously. Uncle Ben You are hpeless.
From: blackhead on 31 Jul 2010 10:50 On 31 July, 03:49, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > 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. I don't think he has got that far. Ask him to please show you, step by step, how he would go about finding the length of a rod of lenght L in a frame moving relative to it using "Einsten's expansion" formula, as he calls it: xi = x'/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) where x' = x - vt People that understand how to use the transformation and what's involved in measuring a length will carefully define 2 events as being where the ends of the rod are. Next they'll define what is meant by measuring a length etc. Instead, Androcles will assign lengths to x' without mentioning the x and t in it. Does he set t = 0? What does he assign to x? > Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: ben6993 on 31 Jul 2010 10:51
On Jul 31, 3:12 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "ben6993" <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:f35de583-2f89-4051-b89d-dd846b364e26(a)u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 31, 2:15 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 31, 8:36 am, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 31, 3:49 am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > I have been led through all this a few months ago, line at a time of > > > the relevant section of the 1905 paper, by Androcles. Thank you > > > Androcles. But my memory of the details have faded. > > > > OK, so Androcles is finding that Einstein's beta is 2 for v = 0.866c. > > > In other words, the length of a rod measured in frame k (using xi and > > > tau) is twice as big as it would be if measured in frame K (using x > > > and t). That's fine isn't it? > > > The rod is stationary withinin frame k so its length is easily > > > measured as L within frame k. (Einstein's paper uses x' instead of L.) > > > So xi=L gives the rod length in frame k. > > > Now what is the rod length in frame K? Since xi=2x, then x=0.5L. Ie > > > we see the moving rod as shorter than it is measured in its rest frame.- > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Yes, namesake, the length in k is twice the length in K. The question > > is, are they 2L and L, or L and L/2. You (and everyone except > > Androcles) correctly argue for the latter. > > > The former is absurd, since there are many conceivable K's existing > > simultaneously, each for a different v. For each, there is a different > > length xi w.r.t. k, which requires that xi have many values > > simultaneously. > > > In the latter case, which you argue persuasively, xi is fixed at L, > > and for conceivable K there is its own contracted x'= L/gamma. > > > Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > OK, I see, the question is whether it is L and 2L or L/2 and L? > > L cannot be measured with a ruler in frame K as the rod is moving in > frame K. > So it must be measured within frame k, by someone in frame k, with say > a ruler. > Noone in frame k is going to measure it and say that it is 2 times 3 > feet long. They would instead say it is 6 feet long. L = 6 feet. > > In frame K the length of the rod is calculated as L/2 = 3 feet. > > I don't see where 2L arises as it does not occur in the calculation of > x (from a given a value of xi) and it is not a ruler measurement of > xi? > > It can only be 2L if the formula is used to calculate xi from a given > value of x, and that cannot happen as noone is in a position to > measure rod length x with a ruler in frame K (as th erod is moving) > and then apply the formula to calculate xi. xi is measured with a > ruler. x is calculated from the formula. > ========================================== > Bonehead6993, this is what it is really about: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E > > You and the interferometer and all your rulers and cabbages and kings > and sealing wax are whizzing around the sun moving through empty space > (stationary frame K) and the speed of light from the laser is c in that > empty space, you are in frame k because you are moving relative to the > stationary empty space. To maintain no fringe shift, you are supposed > to believe the length of the interferometer changes. Can I interest you > in a bridge over the Hudson or the East River, or a tower in Paris? > Make me an offer, I'm ready to sell to anyone as gullible and naive as > you or Bonehead_1. Now stop the world, I want to get off and measure > the length from the laser to the lens and see if it is really L or L * > gamma.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Only two frames in this problem: K and k. The rod is of length xi=L in frame k as measured with a ruler by someone in frame k. The rod is of length x=L/2 in frame K as calculated from the formula. If you accept that c is constant then the above follows from that assumption. If you do not accept that c is constant then the equations aren't valid. Androcles, your posts clearly show that you are clever, but why can't you see you are in the wrong in this one point. (Don't shoot ... that was rhetorical.) I believe from earlier posts that you do not accept that c is a constant, so the formulae are irrelevant to any calculations you would carry out. |