An apology to Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Uncle Ben on 31 Jul 2010 19:55 On Jul 31, 6:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "ben6993" 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. > > You poor thing .. falling for androcles lies > > >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? > > Yeup .. it is measured shorter from the moving frame. > > >The rod is stationary withinin frame k > > So k is the rest frame, and the rod is twice the length that it is measured > to be in the moving 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 just got it backwards .. the same as Ancy .. he can't do simple math and > things the x/2 is twice as big as x- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Check your irony detector. You just reported a false negative. :-) UB
From: Androcles on 31 Jul 2010 20:03 "Uncle Ben" <ben(a)greenba.com> wrote in message news:53821fd2-b2ed-481f-8228-7c1472853aee(a)w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On Jul 31, 6:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "ben6993" 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 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. > > You poor thing .. falling for androcles lies > > >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? > > Yeup .. it is measured shorter from the moving frame. > > >The rod is stationary withinin frame k > > So k is the rest frame, and the rod is twice the length that it is > measured > to be in the moving 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 just got it backwards .. the same as Ancy .. he can't do simple math > and > things the x/2 is twice as big as x- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Check your irony detector. You just reported a false negative. :-) =============================================== It takes integrity to admit error. The defense has rested and leaves the absurd contortions of the prosecution to the common sense of the jury. ================================== The defence has no integrity and is soundly fucked. It's apology was false, Napoleon Bonehead is the little boy that cried "Sheep!" and was eaten by the wolf. You are called as a hostile witness, fuckwit. Napoleon Bonehead, what name would you like to give to the "system of values x', y, z, independent of time", that Einstein said "ist klar" (is clear)? Ref: e2a1c6af-a1d4-4f90-998d-3a15a3dfba12(a)r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
From: Uncle Ben on 1 Aug 2010 10:46 On Aug 1, 1:13 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > Next question: Is x', which belongs to the moving system of values named > "Ubersetzung" by the witness and is in a state of relative translation with > respect > to K, greater than 0? It is assumed that the rod moving in system K has its near end at x=vt. A choice of x at the far end of the rod minus the distance vt that the near end of the rod has travelled since t=0 yields the length of the moving rod in system K. This is obvious to anyone except my learned friend. This length x-vt, denoted by x', is independent of time; the purpose of the subtraction is to express the constant length of the rod w.r.t. K, whose value is the object of the operation (b) in sec. 2 of the paper under discussion. (There is no need to consider this simple subtraction in terms of a third frame of reference.) It is also obvious to all but my learned friend that the hypothesis of his question is incorrect. x' is merely the difference between two relevant values of x, a coordinate of system K, the stationary system. (And yes, the length x-vt is greater than 0 in non-trivial cases.) Next question.
From: Uncle Ben on 1 Aug 2010 13:07 On Aug 1, 12:33 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: drivel John if all you are going to do with my replies is to delete them, then it's no fun to play with you any more. The question you ask at the end of your last post is of the form, "If 2*5 = 193, how much is the square root of 1? YES or NO?" You'll have to go on by yourself, declare victory, and go feed yur lion, poor thing. This thread offers the best evidence I could possibly find of the proposition that you are losing whatever intelligence you may have had as a younger man. Uncle Ben
From: PD on 2 Aug 2010 15:54
On Jul 31, 8:54 am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > 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. I thought > that if the truth were spelled out with such clarity that even his > lion could understand it, Androcles might man up enough to display > some integrity and recover some respect. Otherwise, it is killfile > time. That seems best. I've seen Androcles stick to a claim that 2 = 1/2 in the past. |