Yours (aka Einstein's) isn't. (Wait a few more days and you'll see.)  Don't waste our time.  Your numbers are wrong.  They have been shown  to be wrong in the past.  Every one of your new examples is an old  one being rehashed one more time.  

In article <6gudnm$ This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it (Jim Carr) writes: Carr: We first define Tau as a function of x', y, z, and t.      This is the important point.  That is, tau (what Eleaticus writes T     in his equations) is a function of four variables.  Trouble arises     when Einstein uses the same name for the dummy variables of T as     he does for the real ones. ... glird:  The other important thing is that the tau in Einstein's @tau/@x'    is an entirely different thing than the one in his @tau/@t. Carr: No, it's the same function  tau( x', y, z, t ) .  Maybe what's confusing    is that the   t  and   x'  in   @tau/@x'  and   @tau/@t  are _not_    the  t  and  x'  as defined in the preceding paragraph (t  being the K-time    of the emission and  x'  being the separation of the mirror from the    k-origin measured with K-units) but merely indicators which variable    to differentiate: the first and the fourth, resp.               Recap: Question: In the _expression_:    tau(x',0,0,t + x'/{c-v})    wrt which x' do you employ    the chain rule? Carr: Write T(x',y,z,t) as T(A,B,C,D) where A, B, C, D are dummy variables ... Carr: the   t  and   x'  in   @tau/@x'  and   @tau/@t  are _not_      the  t  and  x'  as defined in the preceding paragraph (t  being the K-time of the      emission and  x'  being the separation of the mirror from the k-origin measured      with K-units). Carr:  In that _expression_, the x' is a distance to the mirror, and it is what I differentiate with respect to in the calculation.   Methinks our illustrious cowed boy speaketh with forked tongue.  I wonder if he changed his tune after I pointed out that there *is* no point x' OTL of the long equation.   In any event, it seems from his Here it seems you are talking about the dummy variable, which indicates how the clock reading varies with distance from the origin that he is beginning to understand that dtau/dx' denotes the difference between the simultaneous settings of k-clock B compared to k-clock A at the given time t, in which dx' is the distance between such clocks as measured by K.   If the relativists now  agree that this offset is physically present (rather than only as viewed by a differently moving observer , then our long discussion will have been fruitful. If, perhaps, they do thus agree, they will have begun to understand that the Minky-Einstein THEORY or relativity (and its self-protecting mantras) is false.   And if ever they do realize that, they may be able to study, evaluate and critique an all-encompassing physical theory _base_d on the basic premise that    A CONTINUOUS EXPANSIVE-PRESSURE-EXERTING COMPRESSIBLE AND        MOVABLE VARIABLY-ORGANIZED MATERIAL SUBSTANCE TOTALLY FILLS     what Einstein falsely convinced Physics is empty space . glird

Methinks our illustrious cowed boy speaketh with forked tongue.    I don't think you have a clue.  If you cannot figure out that I used A as the dummy x', and D as  the dummy t, I cannot help you.

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it (Glird) writes: It would seem that you merely let x' = A, y = B, z = C and t = D. Yes.  The arguments of tau used to specify its analytic form are dummies, indicating where to substitute whatever value _or_ _function_ is supplied as an argument.  This is the concept of a composite function ...   When I learned (from you and Jan) that the analytic form is entirely different than the functional form , I withdrew my _object_ions to your use of the chain rule. Even so, it seemed from the above that since (x',y,z,t)

In article < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it (Glird) writes: < <   If the relativists now  agree that this offset is physically present < (rather than only as viewed by a differently moving observer , then our long < discussion will have been fruitful. If, perhaps, they do thus agree, they will < have begun to understand that the Minky-Einstein THEORY or relativity (and its < self-protecting mantras) is false. <   And if ever they do realize that, they may be able to study, evaluate and < critique an all-encompassing physical theory _base_d on the basic premise that <    A CONTINUOUS EXPANSIVE-PRESSURE-EXERTING COMPRESSIBLE AND        MOVABLE < VARIABLY-ORGANIZED MATERIAL SUBSTANCE TOTALLY FILLS     And what if this nice picture does not work?  One question that comes to mind is why it is pressure only?  No viscosity? < what Einstein falsely < convinced Physics is empty space . It's not that everybody is convinced of anything.  You really ought to give scientists more credit.  They are well aware of the incompleteness of their theories.  It is only popular texts that have the unfortunate tendency to pontificate.

Try using x' and t, to avoid the confusion altogether. (Yes, Jim, it was confusing. Especially since, as Jan said, HIS A, B, C, D have a different meaning than yours.)  That may be a problem, but I have defined a clear statement of the  problem in an unambiguous set of variables.  Since your original  (and continuing) confusion concerns the dual use of x' and t in  these equations, I think it is essential to do something like  define tau(a,b,c,d) as the function and x' etc as the arguments,  only sorting things out at the end.  It is unfortunate that separate posts added further confusion, but  the answer is not to go back to the original confusion.