Prev: Well founded non-standard models?
Next: The purpose of the Peano Axioms
From: waldofj on 16 May 2010 01:35
On May 15, 3:13 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 10:39 am, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >< As I said above it turns out that _a_ doesn't denote
>
>  anything so there's nothing to define.
>     btw we have both been making a mistake when we write a = phi(v)..
>  that implies that a is a variable that is being set to the value
>  returned by phi(v).
>     That's not what it is.
>  We should be using the symbol for "is the same
>  as" (I can't reproduce it here with ascii text) instead of equals. In
>  other words, _a_ is just a typographical substitution for phi(v),
>  easier to type _a_ than phi(v). >
>
>   That's an excellent point!  (I think you may be right.
>   But why phi("v")?  Why not phi(q)? (Or, as Anrdocles would
> automatically say, Why not phu(q)?

You can call it anything you want but, well, it's a point I keep
harping on, I don't mean to sound like a broken record and I don't
mean to sound like I'm talking down my nose at you but (here we go
again), without calculus you will NOT understand the long answer. The
short answer is: it is a function of v because of the the way it
arises from the derivations. It has to be a function of v, period.

>
> ><As to what _a_ is (here we go again)
>
>  _a_ is a mathematical artifact that arises from the method used to
>  derive the equations, nothing more, nothing less. It requires a
>  subsequent analysis of the problem to determine if it denotes
> anything
>  or not. As it turns out, _a_ doesn't denote anything.>
>
>    Even so, if - as E later said, a = phu(q) = 1, then in wadicall Eq
> 3,
>  it disappears, leaving us with
>          tau = t - v(x-vt)/(c^2-v*2).
so:
tau = t - (vx - tv^2)/(c^2 - v^2)
tau = (tc^2 - tv^2 - vx + tv^2)/(c^2 - v^2)
tau = (tc^2 - vx)/ (c^2 - v^2)
tau = (t - vx/c^2)(c^2/(c^2 - v^2)
tau (t - vx/c^2) (1 / (1 - v^2/c^2)
tau = (t - vx/c^2) beta^2

> That is NOT what the LTE demand!

correct!

>   To get the LTE's equation from eq 3, _a_ (thus phi(v) MUST equal 1/
> beta!

well, you finally noticed that a factor of beta is missing from those
equations. I say it's been divided out, you say multiplied by 1/beta.
Same thing. But if you're thinking that 1/beta has somehow been
absorbed into _a_.
No. It's a missing step. (one of the assumptions you're getting wrong)
_a_ is accounted for later.

>
> glird

From: glird on 16 May 2010 12:12
On May 16, 1:12 am, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
> On May 15, 1:29 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
>>  Btw, E's "proof" that "phi(v) = 1" was defective anyhow.
>> Do you know what my assumptions were?
>
> Only the basic assumption that you keep trying to treat this as an
> algebra problem when it's not.

E's "proof" was and is an algebra problem. Indeed, other than the
symbol "phi(v)" itself, there is NO calculus in it at all.

Instead of arguing with me over these minor details J. Waldof,
please look at the thread called
OOPS, says "Androcles"
and PLEASE post a reply to it.

glird
From: waldofj on 16 May 2010 14:28
On May 16, 12:12 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 1:12 am, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 15, 1:29 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>  Btw, E's "proof" that "phi(v) = 1" was defective anyhow.
> >> Do you know what my assumptions were?
>
> > Only the basic assumption that you keep trying to treat this as an
> > algebra problem when it's not.
>
>   E's "proof" was and is an algebra problem.  Indeed, other than the
> symbol "phi(v)" itself, there is NO calculus in it at all.

true the proof is algebraic, what I'm referring to is your assumptions
about phi(v) itself, what it is, where it comes from, what it means.
You're assumptions are completely wrong so you draw the wrong
conclusions, the main one being you think E's proof is defective.
>
>   Instead of arguing with me over these minor details J. Waldof,

they're not minor details, they go to the heart of your confusion over
the whole subject.

> please look at the thread called
>               OOPS, says "Androcles"
> and PLEASE post a reply to it.

I thought about. I don't think so, ever hear the phrase "carrying
coals to Newcastle"?

>
> glird

From: glird on 17 May 2010 17:36
On May 16, 2:28 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
> On May 16, 12:12 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>  Btw, E's "proof" that "phi(v) = 1" was defective anyhow.
> > >> Do you know what my assumptions were?
>
> > > Only the basic assumption that you keep trying to treat this as an
> > > algebra problem when it's not.
>
> >   E's "proof" was and is an algebra problem.  Indeed, other than the
> > symbol "phi(v)" itself, there is NO calculus in it at all.
>
> true the proof is algebraic, what I'm referring to is your assumptions
> about phi(v) itself, what it is, where it comes from, what it means.
> You're assumptions are completely wrong so you draw the wrong
> conclusions, the main one being you think E's proof is defective.

My conclusion re the defect in E's algebraic "proof" that f(!) = 1
has
nothing to do with the meaning of phi(?) or where it comes from of
what
it means.

> >   Instead of arguing with me over these minor details J. Waldof,
>
> they're not minor details, they go to the heart of your confusion over
> the whole subject.

They are minor details compared to the general confusion of you
and everyone else over the whole subject.

> > please look at the thread called
> >               OOPS, says "Androcles"
> > and PLEASE post a reply to it.
>
> I thought about. I don't think so, ever hear the phrase "carrying
> coals to Newcastle"?

If that will help everyone living in Newcastle, why not do it?

glird
From: waldofj on 17 May 2010 22:38
On May 17, 5:36 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 2:28 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 16, 12:12 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>  Btw, E's "proof" that "phi(v) = 1" was defective anyhow.
> > > >> Do you know what my assumptions were?
>
> > > > Only the basic assumption that you keep trying to treat this as an
> > > > algebra problem when it's not.
>
> > >   E's "proof" was and is an algebra problem.  Indeed, other than the
> > > symbol "phi(v)" itself, there is NO calculus in it at all.
>
> > true the proof is algebraic, what I'm referring to is your assumptions
> > about phi(v) itself, what it is, where it comes from, what it means.
> > You're assumptions are completely wrong so you draw the wrong
> > conclusions, the main one being you think E's proof is defective.
>
>   My conclusion re the defect in E's algebraic "proof" that f(!) = 1
> has
> nothing to do with the meaning of phi(?) or where it comes from of
> what
> it means.
>
> > >   Instead of arguing with me over these minor details J. Waldof,
>
> > they're not minor details, they go to the heart of your confusion over
> > the whole subject.
>
>   They are minor details compared to the general confusion of you
> and everyone else over the whole subject.

So, when you encounter something that is incomprehensible to you,
despite it being comprehensible to hundreds of thousands of other
people, rather than treat it as an opportunity to learn something you
just assume it's nonsense and go back to spinning your wheels in you
own little tiny universe.
you are pitiable.

>
> > > please look at the thread called
> > >               OOPS, says "Androcles"
> > > and PLEASE post a reply to it.
>
> > I thought about. I don't think so, ever hear the phrase "carrying
> > coals to Newcastle"?
>
>   If that will help everyone living in Newcastle, why not do it?

but that's the point, it doesn't help anyone living in Newcastle. It's
meaningless effort.
>
>  glird

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Well founded non-standard models?
Next: The purpose of the Peano Axioms