Re: Special (Relativity) for da pickle

You crack me up, Susan.




"Susan" <sdbratt48@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:lhz%f.279$Fb5.103@xxxxxxxxxxx
Here is some important financial advice:

If you had purchased $1,000.00 of Nortel stock one year ago, it would now
be
worth $49.00.

With Enron, you would have $16.50 left of the original $1,000.00.

With WorldCom, of $1000.00 you would have less than $5.00 left.

But, if you had purchased $1,000.00 worth of Beer one year ago, drank all
the beer, then turned in the cans for the aluminum recycling REFUND, you
would have $214.00.

Based on the above, the best current investment advice is to drink heavily
and recycle.........

It's called the 401-Keg Plan


You are all welcome.



"eleaticus" <eleaticus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:IUy%f.142$Jk3.15@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Science has for centuries now been producing marvelous results. For the
last
century much of the success has been in the realm of Relativity: General
Relativity, applicable to gravity, and Special Relativity, particularly
applicable to energy and mass.

Special Relativity's rule in the domain of energy and force is amazing,
particularly in view of its basic equations being about space and time
_coordinates_ and not actually about _anything_ physical, let alone
energy
and mass.

It is the BEER, the Basic Equations of Einstein's Relativity (our
acronym),
that lead to the idea that moving lengths contract along the direction
of
the movement and the idea that time slows for moving objects, as for the
famous Twins Paradox.

The 'relativity' part of the name tells us what the equations are about,
the
_relationship_ of two coordinate systems moving _relative_ to each other
at
a uniform velocity.

Given my three spatial-dimension coordinates, x, y, z, and a time
coordinate, t, what are the moving system's x', y', z', and t'?

On my coordinate system's x-axis - it would be a measuring stick if in a
handy physical form - my x is a location on it that shows how far the
location is from the zero point, origin, of the measuring stick. The
related
x', the moving measuring stick's co-location with my x, is defined by
the
BEER.

Consider this composite conversation with a Relativity physicist:

Inquisitor: Suppose that you and I are about to take off in our
spaceship
at near light velocity on a trip to a nearby star. The BEER are very
much
about coordinates at such high velocities. For what purpose, if any, are
x',
y', z', and t' necessary, whether before, during, or after the trip
there?

Relativist, blushing: None.

The truth is much worse than that they are useless. They are in fact
nonsense that contradict not just physical fact, but Relativity dogma.

Remember the contraction of moving lengths?

The distance from our spaceship's starting point to the other star
becomes,
to Relativists, a length that is moving relative to us and thus is
contracted. If the star is .866 light-years away and we travel at
approximately 86.6% of the speed of light then that distance is supposed
to
contract to .433 light-years so it should take only half a year to get
there
at our velocity although our velocity versus the uncontracted distance
says
it should take a whole year.

Thus, if Special Relativity dogma is correct, you can't go the whole
distance anywhere because the distance shrinks as soon as you start
moving
and the 'whole' distance will take you too far.

The moral here is one often found in the basics of Special Relativity:
you
can't use its BEER without violating some dogma that Special Relativity
espouses.

One need not be dismayed at this particular Relativity absurdity. There
are
too many to be concerned about just one.

The primed coordinates that are supposed to be the moving system
coordinates
aren't.

Let's set our x-axis zero coordinate at the left end of a hundred-mile
straight road, with the ever-greater x values off to the right, the
direction to the right end of the road.The x-value/coordinate of the
right
end of the road is thus x=100.

Let the moving coordinate system measuring stick/axis come whizzing by
at
approximately 86.6% of the speed of light, heading from our left to our
right.

Just as the moving system's origin, zero point, is adjacent to our
origin,
let's calculate x' according to the BEER. The BEER say x'=200.

However, Special Relativity also says - _insists_ - that our 100-mile
highway is moving in the moving system's viewpoint and from that
viewpoint
is only 50 miles long. So, according to Special Relativity dogma, x' is
just
50 but the BEER said it is 200.

So, even if the contraction effect due to relative velocity were real,
the
BEER would be nonsense although it is the BEER that lead to the
conclusion
that the contraction effect exists.

But we need not be dismayed by any number of such Special Relativity
absurdities. Absurdity is all that can be expected given that the
derivations of Special Relativity's basic equations are childishly
moronic,
which indeed they are. Keep in mind here that the BEER are supposed to
apply
to _any_ x, y, z, at _any_ time t.

Einstein's 1916/1962 derivation (Appendix A of Relativity: The Special
and
General Theory) of the BEER starts with x=-ct and x=ct (as well as
another
such pair of contradictory simultaneous equations: x'=-ct' and x'=ct').
The
x-pair is only valid for a general/whatever x if c is zero, but c is a
non-zero constant that is the speed of light (in certain conditions).
Thus,
for a realistic non-zero c, the only value of x for which either the
initial
pair or the derived equations could be valid is x=0. One derives
equations
for 'any x' from equations that are mutually, simultaneously, valid only
when x=0? Similarly for the x' pair, of course. (See footnote.)

If you understand simultaneous equations you understand that the usual
point
is to see if there is a common solution or maybe a set of common
solutions.The pair, x=ct and x=-ct, immediately tell us that x must be
zero, and x'=-ct' and x'=ct' prove that x' must be zero. Similarly for
t
and t', which must both be zero for x and x' to be zero.

Einstein's original derivation (1905; On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies) has the cult virtue of being less obviously ridiculous on the
surface but the same basic absurdity is present there also.

In his 'tau' equations he has two superficially contradictory
expressions
for parts of the overall time of a light trip out and back. Using L for
his
initial x' (which isn't his final x', nor anyone's) he had, in effect,
t
=L/(c-v) and t= L/(c+v). There was only a superficial contradiction
because
the two times are sequential, not simultaneous. But later he adds an
explicit equation to the simultaneous mix: t=L/(c-v), which is
compatible
with one part of the tau equation but contradicts the other part.

However, the BEER are much worse than just useless and an essentially
self-contradictory part of Special Relavity.

They are the pretext for the greatest and most disgusting fraud in the
history of science. The idea that Special Relativity unites
electromagnetism
with 'dynamics', the science of motion and force.

The BEER are 'transformation' equations that change one set of
coordinates
into another set. The word 'transformation' is misleading here because
you
retain the original set but the basic class of equation has been in use
a
long time, for instance transforming feet into inches: x' = 12x.

The question of 'invariance' arose long ago as a test of the
universality
of
a scientific equation: is the equation - when written in a form using
coordinates - the same after the coordinates are transformed as they are
before.

A really moronic confusion of the velocity term in transformation
equations
like x'= x-vt and x'=g(x-vt) with velocity terms already present in
Maxwell's Equations of Electrodynamics helped lead to the idea that
classical dynamics/relativity did not transform Maxwell invariantly. A
v
is
used to mean velocity in both cases, but one is the velocity of a
charged
body and the other the velocity of a totally imaginary coordinate
system.

A second aid in creating the fraud was to ignore a fact that every
Relativist knows: every distance is invariant when the classical,
"Newtonian/Galilean" transformations are used (x'=x-vt, instead of the
BEER's x'=g(x-vt), etc). But instead of writing Maxwell in a coordinate
form
that implements this known fact they insist on forms that don't, with
the
result that either of these first two legs of the fraud leads to the
conclusion that Maxwell is not invariant under those classical
transformations. Since every x, y, and z in every rational equation
represents a distance, the fraud is egregious.

The third leg of the fraud is the application to Maxwell's equations of
transformations that are NOT the BEER but are used to conclude that
Maxwell
is invariant under the Einsteinian, non-classical transformations. They
take the g from x'=g(x-vt) and the time coordinate transform
t'=g(t-xv^c/c^c), and the v^2/c^2 from the latter and apply them to
Maxwell's electric and magnetic field values, instead of actually using
the
BEER from which those values were taken.

Maxwell's equations are based on electric field values - and magnetic
field
values - in all three directions, but the result that Relativists claim
is
invariant are the combined values, one for the electric field, one for
the
magnetic field. But the six directional values are all the typical
Special
Relativity horrible nonsense.

This usage of g and v^2/c^2 has never been derived and can not ever be
derived. Indeed, it cannot even be derived for the coordinate values for
which they were supposedly derived.

Another phase of this fraud is the imposition on classical
transformations
of a Special Relativity concept that violates the classical viewpoint,
the
assertion of a time coordinate transform t'=t, although the classical
concept is that time is time and there is no such transform.The result
is
the inclusion of time transform consequences in analyses where there
actually are none.

The electromagnetism fraud is the worst but not the only fraud in
Special
Relativity's claiim to be a necessity. The famous Morley-Michelson
experiments about light speed with and across the direction of Earth's
movement are claiimed to prove SR a scientiic requirement, but the
classical
view of light speed explains the results perfectly, and obviously.

Remember, the energy and force concepts that are included under the
umbrella
of Special Relativity have nothing to do with the BEER, time dilation,
or
spatial contraction.

You have been _told_ a lot in this introductory chapter but unlike in
any
other popular introduction to Special relativity you have been given a
few
numbers, numbers that you will verify for yourself later.

We will demonstrate everything we said above and will deal with
light-speed
and famous experiments. And a bonus before you finish: you will also
understand a basic error of the otherwise successful General Relativity.

Any terminology in this chapter that has been strange to you will
quickly
become familiar and understood. You _will_ understand basic Special
Relativity.

Thanks for giving us a read.

eleaticus
ee-lee-AT-i-cus

'Footnote"

x=y+4
x=y+8

So, 2x=2y+12
and, x=y+6.

Which is a nice average but nonsense, of course, and if we instead
subtract
the two equations we get:

0=0-4 OR 0=0+4

Sorta kinda ridiculous, what?

If you start with contradictory simultaneous equations you end up with
nonsense.

With Einstein we get:

x=-ct
x=ct

Add:

2x=0
x=0

Or, subtract:

0=-2ct

What the hell is the problem?

OK.

Let's take Albert's conclusion and substitute his initial values of x:

x'=g(x-vt)

x'=g(-ct-vt)
x'=-g(c+v)t

or,

x'=g(ct-vt)
x'=g(c-v)t

The two substitutions result in values that cannot be resolved unless
g=0
(unless c and v are both zero), but g is always greater than or equal to
one.

QED even to the densest cretin.






.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Special (Relativity) for da pickle
    ... But, if you had purchased $1,000.00 worth of Beer one year ago, drank all ... century much of the success has been in the realm of Relativity: ... Relativity, applicable to gravity, and Special Relativity, particularly ... classical dynamics/relativity did not transform Maxwell invariantly. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: SR fundamental contradiction
    ... fundamental part of physics since at least the time of Newton. ... I don't reject Galilean relativity, ... What my transformation predicts is that a moving stick is contracted ... but forgetting that the rest frame remains S, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR fundamental contradiction
    ... fundamental part of physics since at least the time of Newton. ... I don't reject Galilean relativity, ... What my transformation predicts is that a moving stick is contracted ... when a moving clock shows a time ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Doppler effect
    ... of view it is moving toward you at x m/sec. ... relativity we still have a perfectly good object which might be called ... that's _not_ the closing velocity at measured in ... the rest frame of the sink, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Problem with Einsteins Train Thought Experiment
    ... object is not moving directly towards the observer. ... There is no physics in the thought experiment. ... laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. ... relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading