But your reasoning above is in error, even if its conclusion is right. Perhaps you can clarify? Again, I suggest the escape route that I opened for you earlier.

Viz:
Robert Houston on October 20, 2011 10:13 pm:
Hansel and Anthony appear to have forgotton a key principle in elementary algebra. As any high school math student would know, both their statements are erroneous:

Hansel: “…I can add thousands of 1s to any side of the equation and this will change NOTHING…” Anthony: “…adding any number of 1s to either side or both of an equation will not make the slightest difference in its meaning…”

These naive assertions violate what is known as the “Golden Rule of Equations.” As stated in a standard math textbook, “What you do to one member of an equation, you must do to the other” (Kruglak and Moore, p 62). Otherwise, the meaning will change.

AnthonyL now:
Sorry, Robert, you are making absurd statements based on what you imagined we said, which we didn’t. No one would challenge your “Golden Rule of Equations”. In fact it is a tautology of a triviality equivalent to saying The Sun Rises in the East. Going to an elementary textbook to justify it is like going to an Atlas to find out that New York is East of Los Angeles.

Obviously whatever you do to one side of an equation you have to do to the other side, or it won’t be true any more, since the two sides will not be equal any more, and that is what an equation means — the one side equals the other.

Robert Houston on October 20, 2011 10:13 pm:
For example, if we trusted Hansel and added 1,000 1’s to the left side of a standard distance formula, M = K * 1.6, it would then read “1000M = K *1.6″ and mean that 1000 miles equal 1.6 kilometers!

AnthonyL: Not so. Adding “1,000 1’s to the left side of a standard distance formula, M = K * 1.6, it would then actually read “1000+ M = K *1.6″.

But this mistake is irrelevant. What seems to have happened is that you have misread what Hansel said and what I wrote, perhaps because we didn’t specify the obvious, that we meant “adding 1x or 1* anywhere in an equation makes no difference whatsoever.”

You mistook the meaning of the word “adding”. You thought we meant simply adding a 1 or multiple 1s. We meant adding 1* or multiple 1*s to any of the terms.

To repeat, we both were simply pointing out that adding a 1* to any term in any equation on any side of it or both sides, any number of times, makes no difference whatsoever to the meaning of the equation.

To repeat, you thought we meant adding 1 or multiple 1s to either side of an equation makes no difference. Obviously not. We were referring to the above. Adding 1* or multiple 1*s, not adding 1s, or multiple 1s.

I am sure that apprised of your two errors to this point you can see this very easily, but just in case, let’s take an equation at random and add 1* anywhere in it, or more than once, or on both sides of it, anywhere:

(ab /c+d-h)*HTV / 234.798 =(16xab/HTV) (c-d)*16.7347213398
If this is true, then so is
1(ab /c+d-h)*HTV / 234.798 =(16xab/HTV) (c-d)*16.7347213398
and
(ab /1c+d-h)*HTV / 234.798 =(16xab/HTV) (c-1d)*16.7347213398
and
1(ab /c+1d-h)*HT1V / 234.798*1 =1(16xab/1*HTV) (1*c-1*d)*16.7347213398
and
(1*ab /c+d-h)*HTV / 234.798 =(1*16xab/HTV) (1*1*1*c-d)*16.7347213398
and
(ab /c+d-h)*HTV / 234.798 =(16xab/HTV) 1*(c-d)*16.7347213398
and
(ab /c+d-h)*HTV / 234.798 =(16xab/HTV) (c-d)*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*16.7347213398
All mean exactly the same thing. The equations are effectively all the SAME mathematical algebraical sentence.

Robert Houston on October 20, 2011 10:13 pm cont:
In reading the distance formula, we know to provide an implicit 1 before the M on the left, so that it means 1 mile. We also know that M and K are different symbols having different values (lengths) but each representing 1 unit of distance. Thus we do not misinterpret it as 1.6 miles = 1 Km. The implicit 1 before M on the left prevents such an error.

AnthonyL now:
Sorry Robert, this doesn’t seem to make any sense at all. Judging from what you say, you are saying that in the equation M = K * 1.6, , that gives any distance in miles M and tells you how to translate that distance in miles into kilometers K, ie a “formula” for translating miles into kilometers, and we must not interpret it as saying 1 mile=1.6 kilometers. But that is precisely what it does mean.

You say that we are in danger of misinterpreting the equation (formula) unless we put 1 in front of the M, so we get 1M=1.6K. But no one is in danger of any such thing. “M” means “1M”. “M” means EXACTLY the same as “1M.” You are not adding anything whatsoever to its meaning by changing M to 1M by adding a “1”. The equation M=1.6K is EXACTLY the same equation with exactly the same meaning as 1M=1.6K.

Robert Houston on October 20, 2011 10:13 pm cont:
If the same normal assumptions are applied to a very similar formula, Rossler’s 1st theorem, it becomes clear and correct. We then understand that T_tail and T_tip are different symbols, and that each represents 1 unit (e.g., 1 hour) of the parameter (time). Thus, assuming z = 1, then with the 1 made explicit his formula, 1T_tail = 1T_tip * (1+z), means that 1 hour downstairs in the rocket equals 2 hours upstairs. It’s that simple.”

AnthonyL now:
Robert, the formula (equation for finding out what td is if you know tu) that you and Professor Rossler have stated is td=tu*(1+z) which you now write as T_tail=T_tip *(1+z).

This is precisely the same equation with precisely the same meaning as 1T_tail = 1T_tip * (1+z), so adding the “1“s explains precisely nothing.

You state that “Thus, assuming z = 1, then with the 1 made explicit his formula, 1T_tail = 1T_tip * (1+z), means that 1 hour downstairs in the rocket equals 2 hours upstairs. It’s that simple.”

But if z=1, the equation becomes 1T_tail = 1T_tip * (2). So if T_tail is the time elapsed downstairs , this equation states that time elapsed downstairs is equal to DOUBLE the time elapsed upstairs, or T_tip.

You have reversed elementary algebra. If A=2B, then B=A/2, not double A. If A=2B, B=A/2.

In fact, the time elapsed at the tip would be DOUBLE the time elapsed at the tail, so the equation to state this fact would be T_tip= 2*T_tail.

So you should now abandon your private algebra, go back and change your position and adopt the new position, that the T_tail is the length of a unit of time ticked by the clock in the tail, and that T_tip is the length of a unit of time ticked by the clock in the tip, which is SMALLER. (That is why the clock in the tip clocks more time relative to the clock in the tail, according to Rossler’s new and up to date statement on the “stupi” post thread, in answer to my careful and exceedingly long exposition of the objection of TRMG Hansel etc to Rossler’s Equation (1).

The distinguished Professor has answered in this manner, that his Equation (1) —- td=tu*(1+z) —- expresses the fact that the units of time clocked in the tail are LONGER in duration than the ones in the tip, which is why the clock in the tail takes longer to tick them off and reaches a lower elapsed time in the time it takes the clock in the tip to reach any time.

So the time elapsed in the tail is LESS than the time elapsed in the tip, because the units of time in the tail are BIGGER than the units of time clocked in the tip. So the clock in the tail ticks off fewer of them than the clock in the tip.

On the “stupi” thread TRMG seems to have stopped saying this is a misinterpretation of relativity and how it works, and gone along with agreeing that the units of time passing in the tail are longer than the units passing in the tip.

If so he is agreeing with Houston/Rossler/Einstein, but I suspect he may start clarifying and contradict this impression in his next post.

I look forward to that clarification. Until he does, however, if you change your position and join Rossler and Einstein in nsaying that his Equation (1) refers to the relative duration of units of time passing in both places, ie Td=Tu*(1+z) , all four of you agree!

My impression is that you just want to clown around. (So do I!)

“The world” is shrinking … now!

No, not really. But maybe .…. NOW!

Boring!

The funny thing is that even if you would be correct with THE WARNING, nobody will care! Really, nobody. The armageddon will not be televised!

Currently playing with “Shrinky Dinks” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinky_Dinks),
Pinky

http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/10/the-world-has-forgotten-that-science-is-a-fight/comment-page-2#comments

You should replace the “you” with an “I” and you would have shown for the first time a correct statement on this blog.

It is a collectionj of non-sequiturs, poor reasoning, wrong equations whcih are not in agreement with nature and so on.

Nicolai has better use for his time than to deal with you, old crackpot and scaremonger.

Repeatingt nonsense does not help you. I gave a theorem. Where is your counter-theorem? Or anyone else’s?

Why does Nicolai keep silent letting his anonymous coworkers take the brunt?

A scientist would now deliver a detailed reasoning how he found this numbers. But I bet that we will NEVER see something like that from you because you are inventing numbers all the time without any kind of rational reasons.

as you were never able to repair your eq 1 you are disproved. Additionally the paper does not even meet undergraduate standards in terms of logical derived arguments.