Correct way to write 24 hour-time? Decimalpoint too.

The Ghost In The Machine

2006-06-04 19:00:03 UTC

Post by The Sorcerer
| On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 01:48:19 GMT, "The Sorcerer"
|
| >| What the fu*k is a "relativist"? Someone who speaks more than one
| >| language? Or someone who lived in more than one town/county/country?
| >|
| >| C.
| >|
| >| P.S.: I am proud to say I did, and still do!
| >
| >A fucking relativist is an arrogant cunt that thinks he understands
| >what a constant velocity isn't, and snips when you try to explain
| >to him what it really is because he is also an ostrich with his head up
| >his arse.
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
|
| I see, you have a problem
I have a problem with fuckin' bullshitters and trolls. You see only shit,
you have your head up your arse. I'm sure you are proud of that.

I see a bit of a mess. The first is that

"In agreement with experimence we further assume the quantity

2AB/(t'_A-t_A) = c

to be a universal constant-the velocity of light in empty
space."--Einstein

Of course this quote is inaccurate, though not highly so (Einstein was
German and the original was published in German). There are also issues
with "Geschwindigkeit", which can be translated as speed or velocity. In
this context most translate it as speed.

The next is an equation:

f'(x) = lim(x->0) ( (f(x+h)-f(x))/h),

without explanation as to why this is relevant. The graph/animation shows
time as the abscissa, and space as the ordinate (slightly unusual but
that's OK); the moving dot proceeds from the origin (marked A,t_A), up to
halfway up (B), then reflecting down again to another point on the
horizontal origin, which would be A,t'_A). Apart from diagramming the
lightpath in (t,x) space, I don't see the point here.

An explanation that supposedly ties this all together:

x+h is beyond B where the light does not go. There is no f(x+h).
Light travels from A to A in time t'a-ta = c = 0/0. In agreement with
experiment Einstein was a lunatic who built a house of cards on a
false assumption.

There are several errors here.

[1] 2AB presumably means 2||AB|| in the original, and that's an error of
Einstein's, not of The Sorcerer's. However, this error is correctable
and in any event is largely irrelevant. Of course The Sorcerer considers
Einstein to be largely irrelevant.

[2] The limit is not consistent with other statements such as v = x/t. In
fact, the limit is more or less correct as stated, if one equates v =
x'(t). Of course one can state that v(t_M), where t_M is the exact point
in time at which the mirror reflects the light, is undefined -- and that's
true enough. However, for all other t between t_A and t'_A, it's well
defined, at least in SR theory:

v = +c, t_A < t < t_M
v = -c, t_M < t < t'_A

[3] By the logic in this missive, c = 0, not 0/0. Lunar bouncebacks are
one illustration of t_A != t'_A, unless one wants to claim that a mirror
will hold onto a light pulse for a variable length of time, depending on
distance between sender, mirror, and receiver. Since the lunar reflectors
are actually trimirror corner affairs, that makes life even more
interesting.

Call me a fuckheaded SRian if you must.

--
#191, ***@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.