An immortal fumble by Androcles (29-Feb-2004)
The Return of the Son of the Partial Differentials
> > > Your math is, most certainly. > > > Ever wondered what dtau/dx' means? > > > Turn it upside down.... > > > dx'/dtau. > > > > Ha, yes, Androcles' Famous Partial Differentials Manipulation: > > let's turn the partial derivatives upside down and we get > > Androcles' Famous Pair of Partial Differentials Theorem Attempts: > > https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff2.html > > https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html > > right? > > Well, three is success, so I think that PartialDiff3.html will not enter > the list of fumbles after all. > > But I guess that Androcles will not be capable of understanding why he is > wrong, and much less the gift hint that I give him * . ( He will claim > that I was not his inspiration, and that he already knew since years ago ). > :-) > > * "A constant has nice properties, but there are "things" which are not > constants but seem like constants when looked through the partial glasses" > (deliberately psychodelic) > Tell me, Sirvent, (referring to http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BAH37.2415$p7.696442@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com ), from whence https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html comes, and Henry Margenau wrote: quote @t/@t' = 1/g. On the other hand, if the mirrors are stationary with respect to the UNprimed coordinates, the reflection events occur at constant x, so the ratio of the time intervals is given by the derivative of t' with respect to t at constant x, which gives @t'/@t = 1/g. unquote why @t/@t' = @t'/@t = 1/g is a fumble on my part, and that g <> 1? |
|
| Fumble Index | Original post & context: nta0c.3438$Dq6.1389@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk |
|
See also |
|