
Up 


Author: glirdglird Date: Aug 23, 2008 22:54
In 1905 Einstein was a high school graduate waiting to get into a
higher level school. As such, he knew how to do algebra; but not how
to do calculus. When I began to study his paper, that was my level
too.
In his segment 3, as part of his "derivation" of the Lorentz
equations, he wrote: "Hence if x' be chosen infinitesimally small,
.5[1/(cv)+1/(c+v)]delta tau/delta t" = etc.
Since I thought that was calculus, I wondered where the "1" came from
and what it means.
Years later I realized what no math expert since did: He wasn't
doing calculus there, he was doing algebra! I therefore changed his
"calculus" symbol, delta tau/delta t, into dtau/dt, whose value in the
LTE is dtau/dt = sqrt(1v^2/c^2) = q.
When someone on this group objected that this violated the rules of
differential calculus, I pointed out to him that Einstein began his
steps by saying, "In the first place it is clear that the equations
MUST BE LINEAR on account of blah blah". He then agreed that my
algebraic symbol, dtau/dt, could indeed be used.
And THAT, believe it or not, is why no expert physicist ever
understood E' s math nor where it went fatally wrong in his attempts ...

Show full article (7.63Kb) 
 130 Comments 


Author: Dirk Van de moortelDirk Van de moortel Date: Aug 23, 2008 23:07
> In 1905 Einstein was a high school graduate waiting to get into a
> higher level school.
In 1900 Einstein graduated with a physics degree at the Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich.
In 1905 Einstein was a patent office clerk.
> As such, he knew how to do algebra; but not how
> to do calculus.
One cannot get a physics degree without being superfluent in
calculus.
> When I began to study his paper, that was my level too.
Even now, after half a life time of drooling and dabbling, you
haven't even got the faintest idea about elementary set theory.
Even a first class imbecile like Androcles can kick your bottom.
Dirk Vdm


 no comments 


Author: AndroclesAndrocles Date: Aug 24, 2008 00:20
aol.com> wrote in message
news:3abd548d4bea46e39c7399e25d42bf69@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
In 1905 Einstein was a high school graduate waiting to get into a
higher level school.
======================
And FAILED. He was an idiot.
======================
As such, he knew how to do algebra; but not how
to do calculus. When I began to study his paper, that was my level
too.
=========================================
And you never got any further. Nor did Einstein.
=========================================
In his segment 3, as part of his "derivation" of the Lorentz
equations, he wrote: "Hence if x' be chosen infinitesimally small,
.5[1/(cv)+1/(c+v)]delta tau/delta t" = etc.
========================================
Since I thought that was calculus, I wondered where the "1" came from
and what it means.

Show full article (1.55Kb) 
no comments 


Author: glirdglird Date: Aug 24, 2008 18:39
On Aug 23, 6:20 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
> aol.com> wrote
>
<< In his segment 3, as part of his "derivation" of the Lorentz
equations, he wrote: "Hence if x' be chosen infinitesimally small,
.5[1/(cv)+1/(c+v)]delta tau/delta t" = etc.
Since I thought that was calculus, I wondered where the "1" came from
and what it means.
Years later I realized what no math expert since did: He wasn't
doing calculus there, he was doing algebra! I therefore changed his
"calculus" symbol, delta tau/delta t, into dtau/dt, whose value in the
LTE is dtau/dt = sqrt(1v^2/c^2) = q. >>

Show full article (3.21Kb) 
no comments 


Author: DonoDono Date: Aug 24, 2008 19:00
On Aug 24, 9:39 am, gl...@ aol.com wrote:
> On Aug 23, 6:20 pm, "Androcles" wrote:> aol.com> wrote
>
> << In his segment 3, as part of his "derivation" of the Lorentzequations, he wrote: "Hence if x' be chosen infinitesimally small,
>
> .5[1/(cv)+1/(c+v)]delta tau/delta t" = etc.
> Since I thought that was calculus, I wondered where the "1" came from
> and what it means.
> Years later I realized what no math expert since did: He wasn't
> doing calculus there, he was doing algebra! I therefore changed his
> "calculus" symbol, delta tau/delta t, into dtau/dt, whose value in the
> LTE is dtau/dt = sqrt(1v^2/c^2) = q. >>
>
No, imbecile
The formula you are refering to is a Taylor expansion, it is taught in
11th grade CALCULUS.
You, being the imbecile you are, never got to this point in high
school.


no comments 


Author: AndroclesAndrocles Date: Aug 24, 2008 20:31
> On Aug 23, 6:20 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
>> aol.com> wrote
>>
> << In his segment 3, as part of his "derivation" of the Lorentz
> equations, he wrote: "Hence if x' be chosen infinitesimally small,
> .5[1/(cv)+1/(c+v)]delta tau/delta t" = etc.
> Since I thought that was calculus, I wondered where the "1" came from
> and what it means.
> Years later I realized what no math expert since did: He wasn't
> doing calculus there, he was doing algebra! I therefore changed his
> "calculus" symbol, delta tau/delta t, into dtau/dt, whose value in the
> LTE is dtau/dt = sqrt(1v^2/c^2) = q. >>
>

Show full article (2.22Kb) 
no comments 


Author: glirdglird Date: Aug 25, 2008 00:31
On Aug 24, 2:31 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
You are asking for the value of u in the equation
xi = x'/sqrt(1u^2/c^2); which – other than the symbols in it,
is identical to xi = (xvt)/sqrt(1u^2/c^2).
I am glad you asked; because it is right here that you
misunderstand Einstein's equations. The answer is: v = u, and may have
any numerical value at all.
The place where you (and many calculus "experts") go wrong
is in thinking that x' is moving at v relative to the Kframe
(x,y,z,t), thus is a member of a different frame of reference
than his "'stationary' system K."
I will try to explain it to you, in the same civil spirit you
seem to have recently adopted.
Coordinate system (cs) K (x,y,z, with the clocktime t) and ...

Show full article (5.04Kb) 
no comments 


Author: AndroclesAndrocles Date: Aug 25, 2008 00:56
You are asking for the value of u in the equation
xi = x'/sqrt(1u^2/c^2); which – other than the symbols in it,
is identical to xi = (xvt)/sqrt(1u^2/c^2).
============================================
Yes. I want to know how fast xi moves with respect to x'.
============================================
I am glad you asked; because it is right here that you
misunderstand Einstein's equations. The answer is: v = u, and may have
any numerical value at all.
==============================================

Show full article (1.59Kb) 
no comments 


Author: glirdglird Date: Aug 25, 2008 05:37
On Aug 24, 6:56 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
aol.com>
<< The answer is: v = u, and may have
any numerical value at all.
==============================================
It is up to you to prove that.
============================================== >>
Next time, read my entire answer before interrupting.
<< The place where you (and many calculus "experts") go wrong
is in thinking that x' is moving at v relative to the Kframe
(x,y,z,t), thus is a member of a different frame of reference
than his "'stationary' system K."
==============================================
Not so, x' = x  vt.
x' remains at a constant distance vt from x, like this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/x'=xvt.gif
I want to know how fast xi moves with respect to x', or, if it is some
distance from x', what equation relates the two.>>

Show full article (1.65Kb) 
no comments 




Author: John KennaughJohn Kennaugh Date: Aug 26, 2008 10:49
The TimeLord wrote:
>> In 1905 Einstein was a high school graduate waiting to get into a higher
>> level school. As such, he knew how to do algebra; but not how to do
>> calculus. When I began to study his paper, that was my level too.
>> In his segment 3, as part of his "derivation" of the Lorentz
>> equations, he wrote: "Hence if x' be chosen infinitesimally small,
>> .5[1/(cv)+1/(c+v)]delta tau/delta t" = etc.
>
>Source? Doesn't look like anything from Einstein...

Show full article (6.44Kb) 
13 Comments 


