Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #393550 > unrolled thread

T = fn(L/T) is Mathematical Nonsense.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  T = fn(L/T) is Mathematical Nonsense. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-24 09:36 +1000
    Re: T = fn(L/T) is Mathematical Nonsense. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-24 02:27 +0000
      Re: T = fn(L/T) is Mathematical Nonsense. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-24 22:19 +1000
        Re: T = fn(L/T) is Mathematical Nonsense. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-24 15:44 +0000
          Re: T = fn(L/T) is Mathematical Nonsense. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-25 06:39 +1000
            Re: T = fn(L/T) is Mathematical Nonsense. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 15:02 -0700
              Re: T = fn(L/T) is Mathematical Nonsense. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 19:51 +1000
                Re: T = fn(L/T) is Mathematical Nonsense. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-25 15:48 -0700
            Re: T = fn(L/T) is Mathematical Nonsense. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-24 17:13 -0700
            Re: T = fn(L/T) is Mathematical Nonsense. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 18:20 -0700
              Re: T = fn(L/T) is Mathematical Nonsense. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-25 19:57 +1000
                Re: T = fn(L/T) is Mathematical Nonsense. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 04:00 -0700
                  Re: T = fn(L/T) is Mathematical Nonsense. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-09-25 16:41 +0200
                    Re: T = fn(L/T) is Mathematical Nonsense. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-26 06:48 +1000
                  Re: T = fn(L/T) is Mathematical Nonsense. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-26 06:47 +1000
                    Re: T = fn(L/T) is Mathematical Nonsense. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 00:10 -0700
                Re: T = fn(L/T) is Mathematical Nonsense. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-25 15:53 -0700
            Re: T = fn(L/T) is Mathematical Nonsense. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-25 02:36 +0000

#393550 — T = fn(L/T) is Mathematical Nonsense.

....yet every dingleberry believes it!

Need I say more?
-- 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#393559

HGW <hw@....> writes:

> Subject: Re: T = fn(L/T) is Mathematical Nonsense.

Ralph, so not only don't you understand physics, you don't understand
eighth grade math, either.

Let's solve that mathematical problem T = fn(L/T), for the trivial case
where fn(x)=x.  So now we have T=L/T.  Multiply both sides of the equation
by T.  Now we have T^2 = L.  Take the square root of both sides and we 
have T = sqrt(L).

So you can easily solve a problem of the type T = fn(L/T).
Well, not you, Ralph, I meant just about everyone else here.
Not Ken, either, he's still struggling with (-6)/(-2).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393584

On 24/09/16 12:27, Michael Moroney wrote:
> HGW <hw@....> writes:
>
>> Subject: Re: T = fn(L/T) is Mathematical Nonsense.
>
> Ralph, so not only don't you understand physics, you don't understand
> eighth grade math, either.
>
> Let's solve that mathematical problem T = fn(L/T), for the trivial case
> where fn(x)=x.  So now we have T=L/T.  Multiply both sides of the equation
> by T.  Now we have T^2 = L.  Take the square root of both sides and we
> have T = sqrt(L).

I see. Moron-y's definition of TIME: Time is the square root of space...
Do you know any psychiatrists, Moron-y? I think you need one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393600

"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 24/09/16 12:27, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> HGW <hw@....> writes:
>>
>>> Subject: Re: T = fn(L/T) is Mathematical Nonsense.
>>
>> Ralph, so not only don't you understand physics, you don't understand
>> eighth grade math, either.
>>
>> Let's solve that mathematical problem T = fn(L/T), for the trivial case
>> where fn(x)=x.  So now we have T=L/T.  Multiply both sides of the equation
>> by T.  Now we have T^2 = L.  Take the square root of both sides and we
>> have T = sqrt(L).

>I see. Moron-y's definition of TIME: Time is the square root of space...

No, Ralph.  As I stated, that was a simplistic *example* of solving that
type of equation, which you claimed was "nonsense".  Don't try to evade
the very issue you brought up.

Why not post the *exact* equation you have an issue with, not a generic
"Fn"?  Then someone can not only show you how to solve the equation, but
show that the units come out correctly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393652

On 25/09/16 01:44, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>>>
>>> Let's solve that mathematical problem T = fn(L/T), for the trivial case
>>> where fn(x)=x.  So now we have T=L/T.  Multiply both sides of the equation
>>> by T.  Now we have T^2 = L.  Take the square root of both sides and we
>>> have T = sqrt(L).
>
>> I see. Moron-y's definition of TIME: Time is the square root of space...
>
> No, doctor.  As I stated, that was a simplistic *example* of solving that
> type of equation, which you claimed was "nonsense".  Don't try to evade
> the very issue you brought up.
>
> Why not post the *exact* equation you have an issue with, not a generic
> "Fn"?  Then someone can not only show you how to solve the equation, but
> show that the units come out correctly.

Little boy, this is not about particular equations. TIME cannot be a 
function of itself by definition. That would make it dependent on 
itself,  mathematically nonsensical and logically circular.

To say that time is dependent of speed when speed is dependent on time 
is the kind of thing that would make a 2yo kid laugh.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393660

On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 3:39:20 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

> Little boy, this is not about particular equations. TIME cannot be a 
> function of itself by definition. That would make it dependent on 
> itself,  mathematically nonsensical and logically circular.
> 
> To say that time is dependent of speed when speed is dependent on time 
> is the kind of thing that would make a 2yo kid laugh.

It was, of course, quite evident from the beginning that your question was 
based on a misunderstanding of the Lorentz transformation equations.

You have spent most of your life not understanding their meaning, and there is
no hope that you will manage any revelations. Looking at your posting history,
twenty years ago you might have had a ghost of a chance of achieving some sort
of understanding. Your posting history over the last ten years has shown that
your resistance to understanding, your rejection of all scientific evidence, 
and your arrogance have all increased to truly formidable levels.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393711

On 25/09/16 08:02, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 3:39:20 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
>> Little boy, this is not about particular equations. TIME cannot be a
>> function of itself by definition. That would make it dependent on
>> itself,  mathematically nonsensical and logically circular.
>>
>> To say that time is dependent of speed when speed is dependent on time
>> is the kind of thing that would make a 2yo kid laugh.
>
> It was, of course, quite evident from the beginning that your question was
> based on a misunderstanding of the Lorentz transformation equations.

The LT is a myth that sprang out of the MMX light clock debacle.

> You have spent most of your life not understanding their meaning, and there is
> no hope that you will manage any revelations. Looking at your posting history,
> twenty years ago you might have had a ghost of a chance of achieving some sort
> of understanding. Your posting history over the last ten years has shown that
> your resistance to understanding, your rejection of all scientific evidence,
> and your arrogance have all increased to truly formidable levels.

We scientist are often regarded in that way by lay people. I don't care 
about it...in fact I quite enjoy it.



-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393792

On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 3:51:42 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
>
> The LT is a myth that sprang out of the MMX light clock debacle.

Actually, it was an attempt to save the aether theory, but it was reborn
without the aether because of the magnet-and-conductor reality.

> ....
> We scientist> 

So did you forget the "s" at the end of "scientist" or an extra "e" on
the end of "We" :-)

Describing yourself as a scientist is pure baloney, unless you are a
landfill scientist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393669

Little boy, this is not about particular equations. TIME cannot be a function of itself by definition. That would make it dependent on itself, mathematically nonsensical and logically circular.

Yeah .... That would run into all sorts of singularities  and infinities. How ridiculous!!!!

That woul be like ((4pi-1.09533606)^8/c = 1

(((((4 * pi) - 1)^8) / 299 792 835.356)^2) + 2 = pi = 3.14159265359

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393677

On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 2:39:20 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
> On 25/09/16 01:44, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> > Why not post the *exact* equation you have an issue with, not a generic
> > "Fn"?  Then someone can not only show you how to solve the equation, but
> > show that the units come out correctly.
> 
> Little boy, this is not about particular equations.

So you believe Moroney is an atomic bomb?

> TIME cannot be a function of itself by definition. That would make it
> dependent on itself,  mathematically nonsensical and logically circular.
> 
> To say that time is dependent of speed when speed is dependent on time 
> is the kind of thing that would make a 2yo kid laugh.

As Moroney demonstrated, it is mathematically viable and not logically
circular at all.  But the REAL test has nothing to do with logic:  what
matters is the experimental evidence, and the copious evidence confirms
time dilation and refutes your stupid BaThWater.

Your yelling and screaming that no experiment supports relativity has no
effect whatever on reality.  Get that empty head of yours filled up with
knowledge instead of wishful nonsense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393713

On 25/09/16 11:20, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 2:39:20 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

>>
>> Little boy, this is not about particular equations.
>
> So you believe Moroney is an atomic bomb?

No don't be nasty to him. He is suffering...

>> TIME cannot be a function of itself by definition. That would make it
>> dependent on itself,  mathematically nonsensical and logically circular.
>>
>> To say that time is dependent of speed when speed is dependent on time
>> is the kind of thing that would make a 2yo kid laugh.
>
> As Moroney demonstrated, it is mathematically viable and not logically
> circular at all.  But the REAL test has nothing to do with logic:  what
> matters is the experimental evidence, and the copious evidence confirms
> time dilation and refutes your stupid BaThWater.

BaTh is supported by the light curve of every Cepheid in our Galaxy..the 
most studied type of star. That is all the experimental evidence we need.

> Your yelling and screaming that no experiment supports relativity has no
> effect whatever on reality.  Get that empty head of yours filled up with
> knowledge instead of wishful nonsense.

There are lots of experiments that support relativity. Bodkin has dreams 
them up every night....


-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393718

On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 4:57:42 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote:
> On 25/09/16 11:20, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > As Moroney demonstrated, it is mathematically viable and not logically
> > circular at all.  But the REAL test has nothing to do with logic:  what
> > matters is the experimental evidence, and the copious evidence confirms
> > time dilation and refutes your stupid BaThWater.
> 
> BaTh is supported by the light curve of every Cepheid in our Galaxy..the 
> most studied type of star. That is all the experimental evidence we need.

From the multi-band light curve of SU_Cyg, please provide us with a single set
of orbital parameters (distance, eccentricity, inclination, yaw, etc.) plus
whatever other cruft that you need to throw in (extinction, etc.) that will 
***simultaneously*** explain all of the plots provided below:

https://astrobites.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Screenshot-2014-12-15-16.52.14.png
https://astrobites.org/2014/12/15/studying-cepheid-light-curves/

Explain the angular diameter curve of Cepheid δ Cep
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2016/09/aa28005-15/aa28005-15-fig1.jpg
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2016/09/aa28005-15

Explain the angular diameter curve of Cepheid ℓ Car
http://inspirehep.net/record/1193740/files/gieren_fig1.png
http://inspirehep.net/record/1193740?ln=en

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393733

Op 25-sep-2016 om 13:00 schreef Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog:
> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 4:57:42 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote:
>> On 25/09/16 11:20, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>
>>> As Moroney demonstrated, it is mathematically viable and not logically
>>> circular at all.  But the REAL test has nothing to do with logic:  what
>>> matters is the experimental evidence, and the copious evidence confirms
>>> time dilation and refutes your stupid BaThWater.
>>
>> BaTh is supported by the light curve of every Cepheid in our Galaxy..the
>> most studied type of star. That is all the experimental evidence we need.
>
> From the multi-band light curve of SU_Cyg, please provide us with a single set
> of orbital parameters (distance, eccentricity, inclination, yaw, etc.) plus
> whatever other cruft that you need to throw in (extinction, etc.) that will
> ***simultaneously*** explain all of the plots provided below:
>
> https://astrobites.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Screenshot-2014-12-15-16.52.14.png
> https://astrobites.org/2014/12/15/studying-cepheid-light-curves/
>
> Explain the angular diameter curve of Cepheid δ Cep
> http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2016/09/aa28005-15/aa28005-15-fig1.jpg
> http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2016/09/aa28005-15
>
> Explain the angular diameter curve of Cepheid ℓ Car
> http://inspirehep.net/record/1193740/files/gieren_fig1.png
> http://inspirehep.net/record/1193740?ln=en

But... don't you know? All this data is simply forged
by the anti-bath kabal, in order to produce so-called
"phenomena" that cannot possibly be explained by his
delusion.

Dirk Vdm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393758

On 26/09/16 00:41, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

>> https://astrobites.org/2014/12/15/studying-cepheid-light-curves/
>>
>> Explain the angular diameter curve of Cepheid δ Cep
>> http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2016/09/aa28005-15/aa28005-15-fig1.jpg
>>
>> http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2016/09/aa28005-15
>>
>> Explain the angular diameter curve of Cepheid ℓ Car
>> http://inspirehep.net/record/1193740/files/gieren_fig1.png
>> http://inspirehep.net/record/1193740?ln=en
>
> But... don't you know? All this data is simply forged
> by the anti-bath kabal, in order to produce so-called
> "phenomena" that cannot possibly be explained by his
> delusion.

Once an idiot, always and idiot..

> Dirk Vdm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393757

On 25/09/16 21:00, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 4:57:42 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote:
>> On 25/09/16 11:20, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>
>>> As Moroney demonstrated, it is mathematically viable and not logically
>>> circular at all.  But the REAL test has nothing to do with logic:  what
>>> matters is the experimental evidence, and the copious evidence confirms
>>> time dilation and refutes your stupid BaThWater.
>>
>> BaTh is supported by the light curve of every Cepheid in our Galaxy..the
>> most studied type of star. That is all the experimental evidence we need.
>
>  From the multi-band light curve of SU_Cyg, please provide us with a single set
> of orbital parameters (distance, eccentricity, inclination, yaw, etc.) plus
> whatever other cruft that you need to throw in (extinction, etc.) that will
> ***simultaneously*** explain all of the plots provided below:
>
> https://astrobites.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Screenshot-2014-12-15-16.52.14.png

These are straightforward results of c+v, whith the different bands 
coming from different depths.

> https://astrobites.org/2014/12/15/studying-cepheid-light-curves/

I like the author....nice little 2nd year grad student. I migth email 
her and give her some advice.
This is revealing, "Finally, in addition to fitting the light curves 
with (a more commonly-used) seventh-order Fourier series, the authors 
also tried fits using multiple period Gaussians. The period Gaussian 
functions allow them to get good fits with fewer parameters (from 15 to 
9) and to be less sensitive to spurious features in the data."

I can fit this type of curve very easily with nearly 100% accuracy using 
c+v.

> Explain the angular diameter curve of Cepheid δ Cep
> http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2016/09/aa28005-15/aa28005-15-fig1.jpg
> http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2016/09/aa28005-15

I really enjoyed this bit, "Conclusions. For the first time we have been 
able to detect in the visible domain a resolved structure around δ Cep. 
We have also shown that a simple model cannot explain the observations, 
and more work will be necessary in the future, both on observations and 
modelling."

Looks like you goofed there....

> Explain the angular diameter curve of Cepheid ℓ Car
> http://inspirehep.net/record/1193740/files/gieren_fig1.png
> http://inspirehep.net/record/1193740?ln=en

....Not really relevant to my work.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393821

On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 3:47:25 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 25/09/16 21:00, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:

> >
> >  From the multi-band light curve of SU_Cyg, please provide us with a single set
> > of orbital parameters (distance, eccentricity, inclination, yaw, etc.) plus
> > whatever other cruft that you need to throw in (extinction, etc.) that will
> > ***simultaneously*** explain all of the plots provided below:
> >
> > https://astrobites.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Screenshot-2014-12-15-16.52.14.png
> 
> These are straightforward results of c+v, whith the different bands 
> coming from different depths.
> 
> > https://astrobites.org/2014/12/15/studying-cepheid-light-curves/
> 
> I like the author....nice little 2nd year grad student. I migth email 
> her and give her some advice.
> This is revealing, "Finally, in addition to fitting the light curves 
> with (a more commonly-used) seventh-order Fourier series, the authors 
> also tried fits using multiple period Gaussians. The period Gaussian 
> functions allow them to get good fits with fewer parameters (from 15 to 
> 9) and to be less sensitive to spurious features in the data."
> 
> I can fit this type of curve very easily with nearly 100% accuracy using 
> c+v.

Uh huh. Sure. Preliminary GAIA parallax for SU Cyg is 1.522 mas. 
Tell me about this star.

> > Explain the angular diameter curve of Cepheid δ Cep
> > http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2016/09/aa28005-15/aa28005-15-fig1.jpg
> > http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2016/09/aa28005-15
> 
> I really enjoyed this bit, "Conclusions. For the first time we have been 
> able to detect in the visible domain a resolved structure around δ Cep. 
> We have also shown that a simple model cannot explain the observations, 
> and more work will be necessary in the future, both on observations and 
> modelling."
> 
> Looks like you goofed there....
> 
> > Explain the angular diameter curve of Cepheid ℓ Car
> > http://inspirehep.net/record/1193740/files/gieren_fig1.png
> > http://inspirehep.net/record/1193740?ln=en
> 
> ....Not really relevant to my work.

Definitely relevant. If the diameter increases/decreases by 25%, what variation 
in magnitude would come about simply from the star's changes in surface area?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393793

On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 3:57:42 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
>
> On 25/09/16 11:20, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 2:39:20 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

> > >
> > > Little boy, this is not about particular equations.
> >
> > So you believe Moroney is an atomic bomb?
> 
> No don't be nasty to him. He is suffering...

Hey, I was just asking.

> > > TIME cannot be a function of itself by definition. That would make it
> > > dependent on itself,  mathematically nonsensical and logically circular.
> > >
> > > To say that time is dependent of speed when speed is dependent on time
> > > is the kind of thing that would make a 2yo kid laugh.
> >
> > As Moroney demonstrated, it is mathematically viable and not logically
> > circular at all.  But the REAL test has nothing to do with logic:  what
> > matters is the experimental evidence, and the copious evidence confirms
> > time dilation and refutes your stupid BaThWater.
> 
> BaTh is supported by the light curve of every Cepheid in our Galaxy..the 
> most studied type of star. That is all the experimental evidence we need.

Au contraire, mon ami.  It is supported only if a bizarre concoction of
incongruous harebrained ideas are confirmed.  Unfortunately, they are not.

> > Your yelling and screaming that no experiment supports relativity has no
> > effect whatever on reality.  Get that empty head of yours filled up with
> > knowledge instead of wishful nonsense.
> 
> There are lots of experiments that support relativity. Bodkin has dreams 
> them up every night....

There is no need to dream them up, they are available to any honest person.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#393682

"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 25/09/16 01:44, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>>>> Let's solve that mathematical problem T = fn(L/T), for the trivial case
>>>> where fn(x)=x.  So now we have T=L/T.  Multiply both sides of the equation
>>>> by T.  Now we have T^2 = L.  Take the square root of both sides and we
>>>> have T = sqrt(L).
>>
>>> I see. Moron-y's definition of TIME: Time is the square root of space...
>>
>> No, doctor.

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you got back into the stupid pills again, Ralph.
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, I was not addressing any doctor, Ralph, I was
talking to you, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.

>> Why not post the *exact* equation you have an issue with, not a generic
>> "Fn"?  Then someone can not only show you how to solve the equation, but
>> show that the units come out correctly.

>Little boy, this is not about particular equations.

Yes it is, Ralph Rabbidge.  Ralph, I wrote a post showing how it was
possible to solve an equation with the dependent variable on both sides,
Ralph, but then you whined, Ralph, how the simplistic example I used
didn't make sense, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, since you determined it would
have time as the square root of length, Ralph. So Ralph, I asked you for
the exact equation you had issue with, Ralph Rabbidge, so that I could
show you how to solve that type of equation, Ralph Rabbidge.  Ralph, you
should know this, Ralph, since they teach how to simplify and solve this
type of equation in Eighth Grade here, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.

So Ralph, post the exact SR equation that you are whining about, Ralph 
Malcolm Rabbidge, and I will help you (Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge) solve
it, Ralph, and I will also show you that the units come out correctly,
Ralph.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web