### An immortal fumble by Androcles (16-Mar-2004)

##### "I'm not saying x =vt, I'm saying v =x/t."
 ``` "alen" wrote in message news:dfca704b.0403150430.876e12a@posting.google.com... > "Androcles" wrote in message news:... > > > > I say the light velocities are c+v and v-c. > > > > Its your problem now, you sort it out. > > > > Androcles > > > > > > OK - I'll take it that we have both got as far > > > as we are going to get in this conversation! > > > > > > Alen > > > > Then you are burying you head in the sand.So be it. > > > > The derivation of > > > > tau = (t-vx/c^2)*beta, > > xi = (x-vt)*beta, > > eta = y, > > zeta = z. > > > > where beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), > > > > should, if v = 0, lead to > > > > tau = t, > > xi = x, > > eta = y, > > zeta = z. > > > > However, it doesn't. > > [ See http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GOGI-GIGO.html ] > > > > The velocity v = x/t, as you learned when you were much younger. > >[...] > > Androcles > > I will just comment on this. > > Possibly your hostility > to SR is preventing > you from examining it with the patience > it requires. Hostility implies emotion. This has nothing to do with hatred or feelings, and everything to do with mathematics and logic. Possibly you haven't even come close to examining it with the patience I have. Possibly you are simply intoxicated on time dilation. Possibly you don't realize that x' = cosh(A)[x - t tanh(A)] t' = cosh(A)[t - x tanh(A)] where A = atanh(v) has the same result as t' = (t-vx/c^2)*beta, x' = (x-vt)*beta ? How to turn apples into oranges. x = 4 oranges, t = 5 apples, x' = 0 oranges t' = 3 apples where A = (4 oranges)/(5 apples) because apples grow faster than oranges. If you can rotate (x,t), converting length into time, I can convert oranges into apples. You are manipulating scalars, not vectors. > If so, I would remark that I > think that it is dangerous to be too much of > a partisan for or against any theory, since it > will undermine the essential, patient, and > sometimes laborious objectivity. It is not so. I am no partisan to any theory. There is no politics in this. Nature doesn't work by popular vote. Objectivity is everything. > > In the transformation equation, x does not stand > for vt. I have a diagram on my page > http://home.westserv.net.au/~alen1/Physics/aSpacelikeExperiments.htm > which shows what the transformation equation > refers to. You have the equation x' = gamma(x-vt). That is what I've used, except I used Einstein's beta for your gamma and Einstein's xi for your x'. There can only be one value for v, and that is x/t. I'm not saying x =vt, I'm saying v =x/t. x' = gamma(x-vt). = gamma(x-(x/t)t). = gamma(x-x) = gamma *0 = 0. Obviously I can say dx/dt to give an instanteous velocity, and equally as obviously if I drive for a full hour at 60 mph, I travel 60 miles. Actually, in Newtonian Mechanics, x' = x+vt. Time increasing down the page. 0----------------x t = 0 0----------------x----x' t = 1, v =5 0----------------x----------x' t = 2, v = 5 0----------------x----------------x' t = 3, v = 5 x' = x+vt = 5,10,15 --------------0x t = 0, v = -5 --------0x'----x t = 1, v = -5 ---0x'---------x t = 2, v = -5 0x'------------x t = 3, v = -5 x' = x-vt = 0. Think about it. Androcles.``` Fumble Index Original post & context: JHs5c.4575\$ra4.2815@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk