Einstein's lopsided caricature of space and time
Perspicacious
expressed if not grotesquely convoluted misrepresentations. Why
concern yourself with a muddled explanation of special relativity
when a clear exposition is readily available?
Einstein did indeed propagandize and dupe millions into thinking
that the essence of SR is all about his special and confusing
riddles. I reject Einstein's lopsided caricature of space and
time.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Perspicacious" <iperspi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1124379531.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Well, Eugene, with Androcles you are in excellent company
on this one:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:users%2Epandora%2Ebe+androcles
Try to keep it up until you die.
Dirk Vdm
Sam Wormley
Too bad you've never really learned relativity, Shubert. You've
been posting here for a few years, but you don't seem to get
the message that you don't understand relativity. Pity really!
TokaMundo
Gave us:
He is relatively irrelevant.
jem
Knock it off with this crap, Shubert! You're like the new math student
who finds out that "1+1=2" can be proven from more basic assumptions,
and becomes obsessed with discovering the best possible proof in order
to ensure that future students won't be confused by addition.
Your goal of a better derivation of the Lorentz Transformation is
misguided (or more aptly, just plain silly). As far as Physics is
concerned all that matters is that a transformation rule is available
for expressing the relationship between the measurements of relatively
moving observers. Whether the rule is derived from other assumptions or
simply assumed, is irrelevant.
Perspicacious
> Perspicacious wrote:
> > I have no interest in defending or critiquing Einstein's poorly
> > expressed if not grotesquely convoluted misrepresentations. Why
> > concern yourself with a muddled explanation of special relativity
> > when a clear exposition is readily available?
> >
> > Einstein did indeed propagandize and dupe millions into thinking
> > that the essence of SR is all about his special and confusing
> > riddles. I reject Einstein's lopsided caricature of space and
> > time.
> >
> > http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
You clearly misunderstand the purpose of this thread. The subject
is about Einstein's lopsided caricature of space and time.
Uncle Al
>
> I have no interest in defending or critiquing Einstein's poorly
> expressed if not grotesquely convoluted misrepresentations.
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
jem
Get real. The physical characterizations of space and time in
Relativity are the measurements made with rulers and clocks.
Perspicacious
dependence on a cosmic everywhere present
"now." Shubertian physics is independent
of arbitrary clock synchronizations.
The essential characteristic and most
distinguishing feature of special
relativity done right is the
homogeneity of time.
Uncle Al
Empirical idiot.
Pyriform
> Shubertian physics is independent
> of arbitrary clock synchronizations.
And of the known Universe...
Sam Wormley
Shubertian physics... oops... it's not even physics. Go play elsewhere.
xx...@bellsouth.net
xxein: I cannot agree with your replacement model but there is still
something rotten with SR-GR. If you want to play "Twister" it (SR-GR)
is a fine game for a pastime of connecting multi-colored circles. It
is not "real", it is subjective. If Einstieners are satisfied with
that, then that's all they will get.
They are short-circuiting themselves as to 'how' and 'why' gravity
exists. I don't feel sorry for them any longer.
I have given hints as to other possibilities in the hope that they
might explore and learn something. Apparently, they are satisfied with
their own reflection. What a waste of minds playing an ill-conceived
and conceited game. They got their game, why learn anything else?
What could they possibly learn of this universe that they don't already
know from their Einsteinian handbook?
Anybody that parrots the Einsteinian has never thought a lick in their
scientific life. I guess I pity them. And I think that I missed the
memo that numbers only come from the Einsteinian context.
But before I may give a false impression as a know nothing harpster,
let me state that I know the Einsteinian all too well. That is why I
can speak with confidence that SR-GR works exceedingly well on the
subjective measurement level, but fails miserably on the objective
level. 99.9% of Einsteiners cannot discern the difference. So what
does that tell you?
Einsteiners cannot think beyond their handbook. The rote is all they
have. Empirical measurement is subjective measurement and they don't
(can't or wont) realize this. Again the pity.
They even believe (after a fashion) that TWLS is the same as OWLS 'FOR
THEM' but not for another moving frame. "It is the math that makes it
right". Fools all. As if specially concocted math tells this universe
what to do. It is the other way. This universe tells us what we can
observe and how we observe it.
I know that this will go beyond the head of everybody, but this
universe is seamless. It is for that simple fact that we cannot
observe objectively. It is not spacetime curvature, as so many would
want to put it, but it is something that has the same empirical effect
(rem: subjective observation). This universe is really only nuts and
bolts that occupies a void. At least we can say that it will expand
forever (equilibrium to the void) OR it will come back to a big crunch
do to gravity. What we hardly think about is whether we are already
the billointh crunch to bang. What I mean by this is that we do not
know if our universe is all there is. "Our" BB could be only a single
spark of a giant firework display. Or it could be the subgeneration of
any Mandlebrot set of crunch to BB(9999999) out of the existence of a
similar and larger set of crunch to BB. But we dare not think of such
things. Our minds are feeble things and we cannot risk breaking them.
I realize that a long-time patternization is what drives scientific
credulity, but we can also be more logical and explore the limits of
this patternization into (wrt) a longer time. Now that sounds funny
even to me. But if you take the approach that there is no beginning or
end, a seamless process must occur. Where are we in this process?
For the feint of heart, do not think of such things and remain ignorant
except to the poker hand before you (which has only 52 identifiable
cards out of an infinity of such). Do not even think beyond the 16
colors of your crayons (or you will be voodoo'd). But to state it
bluntly (wrt to this group), you will be outcast if you attempt to
think beyond what the mortal Einstein has thought.
I guess I am a moron for not adhering to the 'line of "scientific"
thought' of over a half-a-century past. I deserve to be sent to one of
our famous 'torture camps'. Can you at least give me the choice of
Gitmo or Iraq?
I want to sympathize with you, Shubert, but I can't (if you know what I
just said above). Can YOU tell me the difference between subjective
and objective science? It is really simple. Just think of all you
have to do to make everything happen in the visible part of this
seamless universe and work it into what is the invisible part of the
larger, seamless, parent universes (and their grandparents, etc.).
What you end up with is self-similarity (like the Mandelbrot set (my
particular mathematical favorite)).
Again, I will say that SR-GR is good, but it is only a subjectively
oriented, empirically restricted set of what we can observe. It is
valuable as a local tool, but it is not the science of how any
universe(iteration) works.
I hope that I have given you (and other speculators) enough to think
about for a while so that you don't fill this, or any other group with
ill-supported verbage. But then the group would become inactive. What
was I thinking, anyway?
Just put a little more complete thought into whatever you choose to
post. It might just be the key to a new understanding. But, sadly,
not yet.
Start with an objective reason for gravity.
I am not trying to belittle you. We are already belittled by this(?)
universe. Go get it.
Eric Gisse
Perspicacious wrote:
> I have no interest in defending or critiquing Einstein's poorly
> expressed if not grotesquely convoluted misrepresentations.
[snip]
Then stop.
jem
The "lopsided caricature" is of your own making. Where did you get the
idea that eliminating a theory's arbitrary elements improves the theory?
Physics is not math - generalization is not a goal.
How do you figure that "homogeneity of time" is the "most distinguishing
feature of SR" when it's a feature of Newtonian Physics as well?
By definition, SR is "SR done right". If your doing something
different, then it's not SR.
Perspicacious
> Perspicacious wrote:
>
> > Einstein's lopsided caricature of space
> > and time comes from his unsophisticated
> > dependence on a cosmic everywhere present
> > "now." Shubertian physics is independent
> > of arbitrary clock synchronizations.
> >
> > The essential characteristic and most
> > distinguishing feature of special
> > relativity done right is the
> > homogeneity of time.
>
> The "lopsided caricature" is of your own making.
Nonsense. It's integral to all popular presentations of SR.
> Where did you get the idea that eliminating a theory's
> arbitrary elements improves the theory?
It's an evidence of some understanding if one is able to distinguish
between core essentials and extraneous irrelevance.
> Physics is not math - generalization is not a goal.
"Physics is the mathematical study of all conceivable universes. A
universe is a mathematical model that describes spacetime, matter,
energy and their interactions." (
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf page 1).
Hype, the worship of Albert Einstein, opposing clear thinking and
misinterpreting mathematics, is not physics.
> How do you figure that "homogeneity of time" is the "most distinguishing
> feature of SR" when it's a feature of Newtonian Physics as well?
Is it an important enough characteristic of SR to deserve honorable
mention? Galilean relativity is just a special case of the more general
Lorentzian transformation.
> By definition, SR is "SR done right". If you're doing something
> different, then it's not SR.
Bill Hobba is on record asserting that, in special relativity, belief
in the homogeneity of time is a blatantly false statement produced by
incredibly sick cranks.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/abf7a4a7d21bb362
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/9a3c93b018914d4c
Evidently, Hobba doesn't understand the essence of special relativity.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Thomas Smid
transformation as with the latter itself. The whole confusion about
length contractions and time dilations stems from the circumstance that
the principle of a vectorial velocity addition (i.e. the Galilei
transformation) is assumed to be valid for light signals (contrary to
what experimental evidence suggests) and then this error is being
compensated by makink another and re-scaling the original length and
time units (see my webpage
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/relativity.htm and links from there (in
particular http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lightspeed.htm and
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/timedilation.htm )).
Thomas
Sam Wormley
Submitted to crank dot net
Dirk Van de moortel
"Thomas Smid" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1124482515.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Clearly vectorial velocity addition is not tied to the
Galilean transformation.
When one observer measures the velocities of two objects,
he uses vectorial addition or subtraction to find the so-called
closing velocity between the objects. The result is a vector
that tells how the distance between the objects as measured
by the observer, changes with time as measured by the observer.
This is valid in Galilean and in special relativity, and that is what
is used in Einstein's paper.
When an observer measures the velocity of another observer,
who in turn measures the velocity of some object, then vectorial
addition is not applicable to find the velocity of the object as
measured by the first observer. Finding the correct way to find
this, is what the paper is (partly) about.
About closing velocity (and speed), see for instance
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html#2
Perhaps this helps to shed some light on the possible
misconceptions you might be fighting on your webpage.
Dirk Vdm
Pyriform
Is he a new crank on the block or have I been paying insufficient
attention? No petty Shead-style chip-away-at-weights-and-measures
crankism-of-a-lesser-God here - this one wants to demolish the entire
edifice at a stroke. The website is a hoot.
xx...@bellsouth.net
xxein: Otoh, we can each make universal law according to how we wish
to portray it with mere belief?
Why do lesser people make web pages pertaining to this except to show
off a more profane vanity? Isn't an ordinary vanity enough?
jem
> "Physics is the mathematical study of all conceivable universes.
Physics attempts to describe the universe we live in. (Well, perhaps
not the one you live in).
A
> universe is a mathematical model that describes spacetime, matter,
> energy and their interactions."
Physical models don't "describe spacetime, matter, energy and their
interactions" (i.e. as if such things existed outside of models).
Models use arbitrary entities with defined behaviors (e.g. spacetime,
energy, etc.) in an attempt to duplicate the observed functioning of
natural phenomena.
Perspicacious
> Perspicacious wrote:
>
> > "Physics is the mathematical study of all conceivable universes.
>
> Physics attempts to describe the universe we live in. (Well, perhaps
> not the one you live in).
The number of string theories alone exceeds 10^300.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/no-new-einstein.pdf
Thomas
You may have misunderstood my argument: I was not referring to the
addition theorem for velocities of two objects (which is merely a
consequence of the Lorentz transformation) but the addition of the
speed of light to the velocity of the light source or observer which is
used to *derive* the Lorentz transformation in the first place. If you
have a look at Einstein's derivation (see for instance the translation
of his 1905 paper under
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ ) then you will
find there expressions like c+v and c-v, that is the frame dependence
of the speed of light is being treated like that of ordinary objects
(i.e. like a Galilei transformation). Because this is obviously
contradictory to the experimental fact that c has to be independent of
the reference frame, Einstein then decided to override the definitions
of the original physical measuring units and re-scale time and space
such that c is formally invariant again whilst still maintaining the
vectorial velocity addition for light signals. This procedure is in my
view conceptually and logically flawed. Einstein should have realized
that it is not the concepts of time and space which have to be modified
but, naturally enough, the concept of 'speed' for light signals (see my
page http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lightspeed.htm for more).
Thomas
Dirk Van de moortel
"Thomas" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1124535773.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Actually I haven't misunderstood your argument. Before I reached
an argument in your message, I have made a remark about your
phrase:
"... the principle of a vectorial velocity addition (i.e. the Galilei
transformation) is assumed to be valid for light signals ...
First, I have explained that vectorial velocity addition is not tied
to the Galilean transformation, which implies that your usage of
the parenthesised "(i.e. the Galilei transformation)" is totally
misplaced and even wrong.
Second, I have shorty explained the conceptual difference
between the circumstances where vectorial addition can be
used and where it cannot. This is essential when you want to
understand what the paper is about.
> I was not referring to the
> addition theorem for velocities of two objects (which is merely a
> consequence of the Lorentz transformation) but the addition of the
> speed of light to the velocity of the light source or observer which is
> used to *derive* the Lorentz transformation in the first place.
There you have the two "objects" for which the closing velocity is
calculated. See below.
> If you
> have a look at Einstein's derivation (see for instance the translation
> of his 1905 paper under
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ ) then you will
> find there expressions like c+v and c-v, that is the frame dependence
> of the speed of light is being treated like that of ordinary objects
> (i.e. like a Galilei transformation).
The light acts as the first object.
The source acts as the second object.
Both objects have a velocity as measured by the observer.
The observer uses vector addition and subtraction to calculate
the closing speed between the light and the source.
This has nothing to do with the Galilei transformation at all.
> Because this is obviously
> contradictory to the experimental fact that c has to be independent of
> the reference frame,
It is not contradictory with this experimental fact at all.
Quite on the contrary: it is completely consistent with it:
remember the fact that the light also has velocity c with
respect to the source.
These c+v and c-v are closing speeds between two "objects"
as seen by the observer, as I have explained above.
See also
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=TCVIb.109057$Jl3.4...@phobos.telenet-ops.be
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=LWkIb.105664$6N2.4...@phobos.telenet-ops.be
and
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html#2
If/when you understand and aknowledge all this and rephrase
your introduction, perhaps we can look at the remainder...
Mind you, many people make this mistake. The unbeated
champion of this mistake is someone called Androcles.
Dirk Vdm
darthpup
Androcles
"Thomas" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124535773.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
Don't try to explain it to moortel, his IQ is less than 10,
he can't understand what you say, he's a troll and he says things
like
> Discuss relativity?
> With a load of crap like you?
>
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LoadCrap.html
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> You are about as funny as Wilson Rabbidge!
>
> Dirk Vdm
Lock him away in a padded cell and he can scribble away all he likes.
On the court docket, Science v Einstein.
Judge:
"The defendant stands before this court accused of fraud. How does the
defendant plead?"
Defense counsel:
"Not guilty, your honour."
Prosecution opens:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, good morning.
Please reference: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
The first transformation we are given is the Galilean,
x' = x-vt
y = y
z = z
t = t
You have to agree with that, Einstein states:
"If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k
must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time."
We have completed the transform from the stationary system, K, to the
moving system which I'm going to name k' because Einstein doesn't give
it a name.
"Objection! cries defence counsel.
"Yes?" asks the judge.
"Prosecuting counsel is making up names!" exclaims defence counsel,
"my client has already named the system k."
"Why have you changed the name from k to k'?", the judge asks
prosecuting counsel.
Your honour, the name kappa (k) refers to the system of values xi, eta,
zeta,tau which are dependent upon velocity according to the accused
and should not be confused with the system of values x',y,z,t. I merely
chose a suitable name. If the court directs me to use another, I shall
abide by the court's wishes.
"Overruled, it is clear that Einstein gave no name to the system of
values x', y, z and I see no reason why prosecuting counsel should not
do so, do not waste the court's time on trivialities or I shall hold you
in contempt", says the judge.
Prosecution continues.
Applying the galilean function g(),
For all x in K, x' in k', (x',y,z,t) = g(x,y,z,t).
It is clear, so ist klar, in agreement with experience, it being
immediately apparent and because Einstein says so,
a point at rest in system k' is independent of time.
We have now completed the transformation from K to k' with the function
g, and can place system K on the back burner.
Now we come to the defendant's transformation.
Not Lorentz's, not Galileo's, but Einstein's.
For all x in k', xi in kappa, (xi, eta, zeta, tau) = cuckoo(x',y,z,t)
We have a second transformation from the moving system k' to the
moving system kappa.
Einstein would have you believe that
tau = cuckoo_tau(g(x,y,z,t))
xi = cuckoo_xi(g(x,y,z,t))
is called the "Lorentz transformation".
I call it the cuckoo transformation, there is no relative motion between
k' and kappa, the time in k' has been found to be x'/(c-v) and x'/(c+v),
admitted by the defendant in his statement: "But the ray moves
relatively
to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with
the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) = t."
"Objection!" cries the defense counsel, "it is universally known that
the velocity of light is c in all inertial frames of reference! It is a
postulate and the basis of my client's theory."
"How say you to that?, asks the judge of the prosecutor.
I can only ask the court's indulgence and request the defense counsel
produce the relevant passage in the evidence before the court, your
honour. The document referred to is "On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies", the author being the defendant, and that authorship has been
stipulated to.
"The court will recess for lunch", say the judge, "I shall conduct a
computerized search for the term "inertial" in the relevant document.
============Lunch break=============
The clerk cries "Be upstanding in court!" and the judge seats himself.
"I find no reference to defense counsel's claim, the objection is
overruled".
Thank you, your honour. As I was saying:
I call it the cuckoo transformation, there is no relative motion between
k' and kappa, the time in k' has been found to be x'/(c-v) and x'/(c+v),
admitted by the defendant in his statement: "But the ray moves
relatively
to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with
the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) = t.",
the only purpose to the function cuckoo_tau is to satisfy Einstein's
fraudulent whim,
"we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A."
As Counsel for the Physicists, I rest my case.
As Counsel for the Mathematicians, we have yet to prove that cuckoo_tau
is not a linear function.
Here it is that proof:
稼tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
(given)
Doubling both sides:
tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
Taking out the t for 3:00pm on a Friday afternoon:
tau(0,0,0,0)+tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v))
Synchronize clocks at t = 0, tau(0,0,0,0) = 0, we remove tau(0,0,0,0)+
tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v))
There is no relative motion between k' and kappa,the coordinate x' is
independent of time. We do not have xi = x'-ut or x' = x'+ut or any
other function xi = fuckup(x') for Lorentz's sake, there is no u, v, w
or velocity between system k'and system kappa.
The time at point zero is the same time at x', same at xi;
no translation between statioanry and movng frames, this is the moving
frame only, the stationary frame K is simmering on the back burner.
Hence:
tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v)) =
tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)) =
tau(a,b,c,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(a,b,c,x'/(c-v)),
the coordinate x' has no effect upon the time and is independent of
time,
the time is independent of the coordinate. Were it not so, the time at
the front of the moving train, an example the defendant uses in another
document, would differ from the back of th...."
"Objection!", interjects defense counsel, "that document is not in
evidence before the court".
"I can produce it if necessary", says the prosecutor, but I'll withdraw
the statement".
"Objection sustained, the reference to a train will be stricken from the
record", orders the judge. "Continue with the mathemetics, trains are
physical and you rested on that."
My apology to the court. Let me reiterate, time is independent of the
coordinate. I have NOT stated that time was independent of velocity,
that is for the jury to decide.
Removing the superfluous coordinates:
tau(x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x'/(c-v))
Setting the time a = x'/(c-v) and b =x'/(c+v) for clarity:
tau(a+b) = 2*tau(a)
Renaming tau as f,
f(a+b) = 2f(a) or
篆(a+b) = f(a)
Chosing a > b, we have an example
篆(1+0) = f(1)
"In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear
on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to
space and time." -- Albert Phuckwit/Huckster Einstein.
In the second place tau is not a linear function. -- Androcles.
In the third place there are no coordinates to transform.
In the fourth place you've been had!
I ask the jury to convict Einstein on the charge of fraud.
Prosecution reserves the right to cross-examine the witnesses.
I now rest my case as a mathematician also.
Prosecution counsel whispers to his learned colleague, "I'd enter him an
insanity plea if I were you, he's going down".
Counsel for the defence has the floor.
Androcles.
Androcles
"darthpup" <amch...@mailexcite.com> wrote in message
news:1124539155.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| This guy has got to be a "sand bag" filled with horse manure!
|
Depends on whom you are referring. Few of us can figure who "this guy"
is.
Androcles
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message news:2SFNe.6127$5m3....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
[snip the usual]
I was waiting for this :-)
Repeat to Thomas (with a little typo corrected):
Mind you, many people make this mistake. The unbeaten
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message news:2UFNe.6128$5m...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
It might be you - again.
You did it at least 3 times before, so you will do it again.
Dirk Vdm
Thomas
> The light acts as the first object.
> The source acts as the second object.
> Both objects have a velocity as measured by the observer.
> The observer uses vector addition and subtraction to calculate
> the closing speed between the light and the source.
This is exactly the mistaken assumption Einstein was making as well
(despite the obvious fact that light behaves very differently to
ordinary objects in this respect).
Thomas
Sam Wormley
And you can't even show us half a dozen of them.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Thomas" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1124546336.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Where is the mistake in the following statements about the
situation where we talk about the light signal sent by the
source in the direction away from the observer?
The light signal has velocity c w.r.t. the observer.
The source has velocity v w.r.t. the observer.
After 0 seconds,
the distance of the light signal to the observer is 0 meters
and the distance of the source to the observer is 0 meters,
so the distance between signal and source is
0 meters - 0 meters = 0 meters.
After 1 second,
the distance of the light signal to the observer is c meters,
and the distance of the source to the observer is v meters,
so the distance between signal and source is
c meters - v meters = (c-v) meters.
After 2 seconds,
the distance of the light signal to the observer is 2 c meters,
and the distance of the source to the observer is 2 v meters,
so the distance between signal and source is
2 c meters - 2 v meters = 2 (c-v) meters.
...
After t seconds,
the distance of the light signal to the observer is t c meters,
and the distance of the source to the observer is t v meters,
so the distance between signal and source is
t c meters - t v meters = t (c-v) meters.
So, after t seconds (on the observer's clock), the distance as
(measured by the observer) between the signal and source is
t (c-v) meters.
So the time rate of change of the distance between them is c-v.
This rate of change is *defined* as the "closing velocity" between
the signal and the source.
It pops up in the expressions x'/(c-v) and x'/(c+v) in the paper.
Where is, according to you, the error?
Exercise: which physical assumpion have we made that is
essential for the paper?
Dirk Vdm
Mike
The error impecile Dirt is obvious to any sane mind, this of course
excludes you because you are paranoid. I will try to explain in plain
language without using Poincare Group transformations. You wrote:
After t seconds,
> the distance of the light signal to the observer is t c meters,
> and the distance of the source to the observer is t v meters,
> so the distance between signal and source is
> t c meters - t v meters = t (c-v) meters.
The distance between the signal and source, as measured by the
observer, is simply undefined. It is only defined for an observer on
the source. Why is it undefined? Because, it is not a well-founded
phenomenon (an ill-defined spatiotemporal quantity). In order to
actually measure it you need another signal from the source to the
first signal. But then you have to synchronize the clocks of the
observer and the observer on the source emitting the second signal. You
cannot do that on the fly, because you need one more signal. If you do
it before motion starts, you still need another signal to commence
measurement. And that is where the dillema enters the picture: is c
invariant or source dependent? If it is, it turns out that it must not
be in order to be able to measure the distance. If it is not, it turns
out that it must be in order to be able to make the measurement.
Einstein should have learned something from Russell. But he was a
paranoid of major proportions. This is also the reason SR is
inconcistent and paradoxes arise, like the twin paradox. In an attempt
to complete the theory, in a math sense, Einstein forced it to
incorporate an antinomy by assumming c invariance in all interial
frames. If you remove the invariance of c, the theory turns consistent,
but incomplete.
I hope you learned something today, Dirt van der Immortel van der
Fablous
Mike
>
> Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1124552133.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
The distance between observer and A is a.
The distance between observer and B is b.
If A and B and observer are on one line,
then the distance between A and B is |a-b|,
whether you can swallow it or not.
But we already know that Mike aka Bill Smith aka Eleatis
aka Undeniable is a very stupid pig, with a mission to dig
itself in as deep as it possibly can, don't we?
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Playground.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Dirt.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Imbecile.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HiPsycho.html
Keep 'em coming - there's plenty of room :-)
Dirk Vdm
Thomas
The error is the assumption "So the time rate of change of the
distance between them is c-v.
This rate of change is *defined* as the "closing velocity" between the
signal and the source" which is exactly the definition which would hold
for ordinary objects (i.e. the Galilei transformation).
Let's reformulate the problem (your example is somewhat confusing
anyway as with your definitions the distance of the light signal
increases both to the source and observer):
Assume that a light signal is emitted at t=0 from the source to the
observer who is at a distance x from the source. First assume both are
resting relatively to each other. The time needed to reach the observer
is then obviously T=x/c (with c the speed of light). Now assume that
source and observer are moving relatively to each other with velocity
v. For convenience choose the coordinate system to be the rest frame of
the observer i.e. only the source
is moving (this is no restriction as the velocity v is only relative).
Now the speed of light must be independent of the state of motion of
the source, that is if the latter is at the same point as before when
emitting the light signal (i.e. at a distance x from the observer), the
signal must reach the observer again after a time T=x/c irrespective of
the velocity v of the source. This is obviously different from what a
vectorial velocity addition would yield (if the source would emit a
particle with velocity w, it would reach the observer after a time
T=x/(w-v) if the source is receding from the observer and T=x/(w+v) if
approaching the observer).
Thomas
Dirk Van de moortel
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9fINe.173996$_Y1.9...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
[snip]
> But we already know that Mike aka Bill Smith aka Eleatis
> aka Undeniable is a very stupid pig, with a mission to dig
> itself in as deep as it possibly can, don't we?
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Playground.html
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Dirt.html
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Imbecile.html
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HiPsycho.html
> Keep 'em coming - there's plenty of room :-)
>
> Dirk Vdm
Oops!
I forgot to add:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Learned.html
Sorry for that :-)
Dirk Vdm
Thomas
The error is the assumption
"So the time rate of change of the distance between them is c-v.This
rate of change is *defined* as the "closing velocity" between the
Dirk Van de moortel
"Thomas" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1124553380....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
First, if a quantity grows from 0 to A in a time t, then the
average rate of change of the quantiry is *defined* as A/t.
If, after t seconds (on the observer's clock), the distance as
(measured by the observer) between the signal and source
has increased from 0 to t (c-v) meters, then the rate of
change of that distance is c-v, whether you like that or not.
This is not open for debate: it is a definition.
Second, you are *very* confused: there is no transformation
anywhere *near* in what I have written above.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Thomas" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1124550898.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
First, if a quantity grows from 0 to A in a time t, then the
average rate of change of the quantity is *defined* as A/t.
If, after t seconds (on the observer's clock), the distance as
(measured by the observer) between the signal and source
mark...@yahoo.com
> Einstein did indeed propagandize and dupe millions into thinking
> that the essence of SR [etc]
If you actually believed what you're saying, you would have stated
specific quotes and citations where this occurred. You didn't
therefore you don't; and you've just automatically admitted in as many
words that you believe what you just said is false; and that saying it
was a lie.
Perspicacious
> Perspicacious wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/42fe7e203b6191b6
What you are saying is that you don't recognize any similarity
between Einstein's simplified explanation of special relativity
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html
and that of typical, popular, university level accounts on the
internet, meant for mature students and children
http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/%7ecfadd/1160/Ch27SpRl/ApLrntz.html
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/ferminews/santa/
when compared to and contrasted with section 1 of
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf ?
You also seem to insinuate, like Bill Hobba, (who claims to
understand physics at the graduate-level), that an emphasis
on or even a belief in the homogeneity of time, in special
relativity, is a delusion of an incredibly sick crank who
is blatantly ignorant of all his unanswerable, truth-filled
instruction.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/9a3c93b018914d4c
donsto...@hotmail.com
Mike
Only in your psychotic mind it is like that. In the real world, one you
have no connection with, unless there is a connection between what you
dream and what actually is, you are insane.
The distance between UNICORN and A is a.
The distance between UNICORN and B is b.
If A and B and UNICORN are on one line,
then the distance between A and B is |a-b|,
Conclusion: unicorns exist.
Take the time impecile to read what i wrote. Do you have a sound
counterargument? I am pretty sure you do not. Actually, you are very
busy to think of counterarguments because you keep uploading to your
site.
Can you rebut Dirt Van Der Immortel Fablous?
Mike
Mike
Androcles wrote:
> "Thomas" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1124535773.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> | Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> [snip]
>
>
> Don't try to explain it to moortel, his IQ is less than 10,
> he can't understand what you say, he's a troll and he says things
> like
I do not understand Androcles why you try to be so generous by using
the inequality:
Dirt IQ < 10
This can mean of course, that he has an IQ of 9.9999999999999999999
This is to high for what he has demonstrated here. I will be more
precise and say that his IQ is exactly 0.
Mike
> ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
> ½f(a+b) = f(a)
>
> Chosing a > b, we have an example
>
> ½f(1+0) = f(1)
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1124573371.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You wrote:
"The distance between the signal and source, as measured by the
observer, is simply undefined."
That single line shows what an idiot you are and so you were
rewarded with:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Learned.html
Congratulations.
Do you think that I even take the trouble to *read* what
follows such a statement?
Keep digging yourself in, pig :-)
Dirk Vdm
Mike
Idiot, impecile Dirt van der Immortel, you will never know the
difference between physics and thought experiments. You will keep
defining things in your Dirt-y mind but physics deals with measurable
quantities and in the particular case the spatiotemporal quantities
your little pitty chicken mind thinks it can define, cannot be measured
in SR. Only in Galilean physics those quantities are defined. But SR
starts with Galilean physics to arrive to SR physics. When it fails, it
invents addition of velocities to fix things up. It is disgusting.
But again, set you gamma and go ahead, you disgusting impecile, measure
the distances and go ahead to claim verification of absurdity. can you
f...head? I am waiting for you to publish the results.
I argue you to take immediatelly an IQ test. Androcles has estimated
your IQ below 10. I think he was very generous. You have none, it is
undefined in your case, something like 0/0 (from which you derived the
Lorentz transform idiot).
SR physics is absurd and obviously wrong. GR is a little better but a
nasty model of the world with many foundational problems. It is time to
free peoples minds from these absurdities and return to the basics:
attempt to find the missing link between Newtonian Mechanics and
Quantum Mechanics, both of which are extremely sucessfull in their
domain of application.
In a few years, SR and GR will have the same fate as scholastic
philosophy had. I am sure that when the announcement is made about EP
vilation and FTL information transfer, you will be hiding after taking
your sire down. idiot.
Mike
Mike
Idiot, impecile Dirt van der Immortel, you will never know the
difference between physics and thought experiments. You will keep
defining things in your Dirt-y mind but physics deals with measurable
quantities and in the particular case the spatiotemporal quantities
your little pitty chicken mind thinks it can define, cannot be measured
in SR. Only in Galilean physics those quantities are defined. But SR
starts with Galilean physics to arrive to SR physics. When it fails, it
invents addition of velocities to fix things up. It is disgusting.
But again, set you gamma and go ahead, you disgusting impecile, measure
the distances and go ahead to claim verification of absurdity. can you
f...head? I am waiting for you to publish the results.
I argue you to take immediatelly an IQ test. Androcles has estimated
your IQ below 10. I think he was very generous. You have none, it is
undefined in your case, something like 0/0 (from which you derived the
Lorentz transform idiot).
SR physics is absurd and obviously wrong. GR is a little better but a
nasty model of the world with many foundational problems. It is time to
free peoples minds from these absurdities and return to the basics:
attempt to find the missing link between Newtonian Mechanics and
Quantum Mechanics, both of which are extremely sucessfull in their
domain of application.
In a few years, SR and GR will have the same fate as scholastic
philosophy had. I am sure that when the announcement is made about EP
vilation and FTL information transfer, you will be hiding after taking
your site down. idiot.
Mike
Thomas Smid
It is the usual definition that holds for the addition of velocities of
ordinary objects. It can not be applied to light signals however (as is
well known from experiments).
Thomas
Dirk Van de moortel
"Thomas Smid" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1124612128.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Of course it can be applied. It is *defined* and it has nothing
whatsoever to do with relativity.
It even works for two light signals going in opposite directions,
both in relativistic and non-relativistic physics:
After 0 seconds,
the distance of signal_1 to the observer is 0 meters
and the distance of signal_2 to the observer is 0 meters,
so the distance between the signals is
0 meters - 0 meters = 0 meters.
...
After t seconds,
the distance of signal_1 to the observer is c t meters
and the distance of signal_2 to the observer is c t meters,
so the distance between the signals is
c t meters + c t meters = 2 c t meters.
Distance 0 in 0 seconds.
Distance 2 c t in t seconds.
Closing speed 2 c by definition, whether you like it or not.
Every experiment will show that after t seconds, the distance
between the light fronts is 2 c t, so the closing speed between
the signals is 2 c. Period.
See also
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html#2
None of this has anything to do with relativity to begin with.
If you want to be taken seriously by adults, you really should
learn some *very* basic things before you have a say about
more advanced stuff.
Perhaps in a few years you'll learn this in high school.
Actually, you should have learned this already. It is just a
trivial application of the rule we used to call "the rule of 3".
Don't you recognise it?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1124593415.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
[snip]
You've got it all wrong :-)
When/if SR and GR go down, there will be something excitingly
new. I can't wait for that to happen. The new theories will
probably be even more difficult, so there will be more arrogant
idiots (just like yourself) who don't understand it and think they
know better. So my little list will grow even faster.
The list is not about physics or about theories at all.
It is about arrogant ignorants like you.
Gee, you are so naive.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
>
> "Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1124593415.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > You wrote:
> > > "The distance between the signal and source, as measured by the
> > > observer, is simply undefined."
> > > That single line shows what an idiot you are and so you were
> > > rewarded with:
> > > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Learned.html
> > > Congratulations.
> > >
> > > Do you think that I even take the trouble to *read* what
> > > follows such a statement?
> > > Keep digging yourself in, pig :-)
> >
> >
> > Idiot, impecile Dirt van der Immortel, you will never know the
> > difference between physics and thought experiments. You will keep
> > defining things in your Dirt-y mind but physics deals with measurable
> > quantities and in the particular case the spatiotemporal quantities
> > your little pitty chicken mind thinks it can define, cannot be measured
> > in SR. Only in Galilean physics those quantities are defined. But SR
> > starts with Galilean physics to arrive to SR physics. When it fails, it
> > invents addition of velocities to fix things up. It is disgusting.
Oops, I forgot to include this from my draft...
That little phrase of yours:
"But SR starts with Galilean physics to arrive to SR physics."
precisely illustrates my remark to Thomas:
"Mind you, many people make this mistake. The unbeaten
champion of this mistake is someone called Androcles."
The fact that you find your misconceptions of the SR (and that
first paper) disgusting, is exactly why you deserve a prominent
place on my little list :-)
Dirk Vdm
Arthur Dent
Mike wrote:
> Androcles wrote:
> > "Thomas" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1124535773.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > | Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> > Don't try to explain it to moortel, his IQ is less than 10,
> > he can't understand what you say, he's a troll and he says things
> > like
>
>
>
> I do not understand Androcles why you try to be so generous by using
> the inequality:
>
> Dirt IQ < 10
>
> This can mean of course, that he has an IQ of 9.9999999999999999999
>
> This is to high for what he has demonstrated here. I will be more
> precise and say that his IQ is exactly 0.
>
> Mike
>
9.8753745454 toes left.
That's how Androcles calculated Dirk's IQ.
Arthur Dent.
Thomas Smid
> "Thomas Smid" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1124612128.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > It is the usual definition that holds for the addition of velocities of
> > ordinary objects. It can not be applied to light signals however (as is
> > well known from experiments).
>
> Of course it can be applied. It is *defined* and it has nothing
> whatsoever to do with relativity.
At the risk of repeating myself: you can not just define something as
it pleases you regardless of the physical circumstances.
As an analogon, assume for instance you define 'time' solely and
strictly through the rotational period of the earth. Now assume further
that for some reason the earth's rotation slows down. If you
stubbornly insist that time has to be defined in this way, this forces
you then to develop some nonsense theory why suddenly the life
expectancy of people is getting shorter and shorter.
In a similar way has the assumption that the propagation of light can
be treated by the usual vector operations led to the nonsense of the
Lorentz transformation and everything that follows from it.
As I have indicated before in this thread and on my webpage
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lightspeed.htm , the 'speed' of light
has to be defined fundamentally different from the usual definition if
it is to be independent of any velocity involved, namely merely through
the distance between source and observer at the time of emission of the
signal.
Thomas
Steve Ralph
Conclusion - you think that a unicorn can be described as a point.
sr
Dirk Van de moortel
"Thomas Smid" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1124645586.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > "Thomas Smid" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1124612128.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > It is the usual definition that holds for the addition of velocities of
> > > ordinary objects. It can not be applied to light signals however (as is
> > > well known from experiments).
> >
> > Of course it can be applied. It is *defined* and it has nothing
> > whatsoever to do with relativity.
>
> At the risk of repeating myself: you can not just define something as
> it pleases you regardless of the physical circumstances.
Of course I can do that.
Ask around.
After 0 seconds,
the distance of signal_1 to the observer is 0 meters
and the distance of signal_2 to the observer is 0 meters,
so the distance between the signals is
0 meters - 0 meters = 0 meters.
...
After t seconds,
the distance of signal_1 to the observer is c t meters
and the distance of signal_2 to the observer is c t meters,
so the distance between the signals is
c t meters + c t meters = 2 c t meters.
Distance 0 in 0 seconds.
Distance 2 c t in t seconds.
Closing speed 2 c ...
BY DEFINITION OF CLOSING SPEED.
I can imagine that you don't like that, probably because it implies
that you have wasted a lot of time setting up your website. But
the fact that you don't like it, is of not much importance for how
the rest of the world has decided to go about these things. This
is just how things work. I hope that you can understand that.
>
> As an analogon, assume for instance you define 'time' solely and
> strictly through the rotational period of the earth.
There is no need to draw the attention away from your
elementary mistakes by letting me assume something silly.
Time is defined as what we read on clocks.
Now just try to concentrate on what I (and others) have
been explaining to you. This is not a debate or an argument
or something. We are merely trying to *help* you understand
something that looks simple, but that seems to be causing
some problems to untrained people. So take the opportunity
to learn something. After all, isn't that why you are here?
Dirk Vdm
Thomas Smid
> I can imagine that you don't like that, probably because it implies
> that you have wasted a lot of time setting up your website. But
> the fact that you don't like it, is of not much importance for how
> the rest of the world has decided to go about these things. This
> is just how things work. I hope that you can understand that.
I think it is more of a case that Relativists don't like what I am
saying. Understandably so, as Relativity feeds many of them and nobody
likes his livelihood to be challenged.
Besides, science is not done by majority vote but by constantly
challenging and revising present theories (otherwise we would for
instance still be dabbling about with the Ptolemaic theory of the
universe).
> > As an analogon, assume for instance you define 'time' solely and
> > strictly through the rotational period of the earth.
>
> There is no need to draw the attention away from your
> elementary mistakes by letting me assume something silly.
> Time is defined as what we read on clocks.
If there is no need then you should realize that the elementary mistake
is with your assumptions (or rather the assumptions of SR that you are
quoting).
> Now just try to concentrate on what I (and others) have
> been explaining to you. This is not a debate or an argument
> or something. We are merely trying to *help* you understand
> something that looks simple, but that seems to be causing
> some problems to untrained people. So take the opportunity
> to learn something. After all, isn't that why you are here?
It seems it is you who is having the problems here. Otherwise you would
not come up with this 'we are just here to help you' nonsense, but try
to achieve a common consensus with regard to the scientic issues. The
only problem I am having is that people like you are apparently
unwilling or unable to question your own scientific position.
Thomas
Dirk Van de moortel
"Thomas Smid" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1124655153.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> > I can imagine that you don't like that, probably because it implies
> > that you have wasted a lot of time setting up your website. But
> > the fact that you don't like it, is of not much importance for how
> > the rest of the world has decided to go about these things. This
> > is just how things work. I hope that you can understand that.
>
> I think it is more of a case that Relativists don't like what I am
> saying.
No, Thomas, your mistakes occur way *before* relativity even
comes into the picture. You need to go back much further. Your
first problem has *nothing* whatsover to do with relativity.
If you don't understand that, there is probably not much hope
for you. If you don't want to understand it, there certainly is
no hope for you.
If you are prepared to go back to messages 27, 29, 42 and 44
of thread
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/33b79cb1e6c6e92/c4331a432303db8f
and acknowledge your elementary misconceptions, then we
can go ahead. Otherwise I won't be able to help you, and I'll
have to put you next to Androcles. It is up to you.
Dirk Vdm
TomGee
speed is independent of the state of motion of its source and seems
clear of the confusion shown by Dirk. He cannot follow his own
arguments through so he confuses himself with them.
My model is explains that the only way for light to move independently
of its source is for the wave to create visible photons as it moves.
Your ability to see through dirtshit's stupidity makes me wonder if you
can better understand my model. It's not easy, but it's not that hard,
either. Try to find a good argument against my model, like the one
against dirtshit's silliness, or look more into it for me, if you will.
My model explains too that the dual nature of light is due to invisible
em waves crashing through invisible particles (Dark Matter) which
results in the creation of light because the collisions transform the
DM particles into visible photons. The photons are mostly fixed in
space and as the wave imparts energy to them in the collision, they
change into visible matter.
Sam Wormley
>
> My model is explains that the only way for light to move independently
> of its source is for the wave to create visible photons as it moves.
Rubbish TomGee--BTW, your list of Immortal Fumbles is getting quite long.
http://www.google.com/search?q=TomGee+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
Highly embarrassing!
TomGee
otherwise unable to defend your silly notins against it, everyone can
see you have no way to argue against it. You cannot see reality even
when it slaps you in the face, so you try to hide your embarrassment
with non-arguments.
What does that say of physics when dolts like you, Dirtshit, et al can
become physicists? If you're not one, you don't have to be embarrassed
then since your ignorance is understandable.
Bilge
>I have no interest in defending or critiquing Einstein's poorly
>expressed if not grotesquely convoluted misrepresentations.
Wise choice on your part, since you evidently have no aptitude for
the task.
>Why concern yourself with a muddled explanation of special relativity
>when a clear exposition is readily available?
Does that mean you're finally convinced that your efforts in
this area have been wasted due to your many misconcpetions
on the subject?
>
>Einstein did indeed propagandize and dupe millions into thinking
>riddles.
Then, apparently he was a much better salesman than your are as well
as being incomparably better at physics and math than you could ever
imagine possible. Maybe you should study his technique for use in any
evangelical crusades you're planning for some future date.
>I reject Einstein's lopsided caricature of space and time.
Einsein never said space and time were lop-sided. Im not even sure
what lop-sided space and time would mean.
bz
> I think it is more of a case that Relativists don't like what I am
> saying. Understandably so, as Relativity feeds many of them and nobody
> likes his livelihood to be challenged.
> Besides, science is not done by majority vote but by constantly
> challenging and revising present theories (otherwise we would for
> instance still be dabbling about with the Ptolemaic theory of the
> universe).
You are, of course correct about how science advances.
Show us your experimental data that invalidates relativity [any part of
it].
Such data must be replicatable by others, so be sure to describe your
experment, apparatus, as well as giving us complete access to your raw data
and the methods you used to analyze it.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Schoenfeld
Bilge wrote:
[remove]
READER WARNING: "Bilge" is a pathalogical liar and a troll.
TomGee
to alt.moron and claims he has the right to do that just like other
terrorists have the right to bomb us in defense of their right to be
terrorists.
He is no different than Min who spews his hatred of democratic rights
with his lies about his beloved republicans. He is not as literate as
Min though so he cannot make as good an argument about why he disagrees
with something as Min does.
Both are well-known in these parts.
Pyriform
> Schoenfeld, he's also a Terrorist who sends your responses to his
> posts to alt.moron and claims he has the right to do that just like
> other terrorists have the right to bomb us in defense of their right
> to be terrorists.
You are of course absolutely right to compare your public humiliation
with the tearing asunder of limbs and the taking of innocent lives in
pursuit of a religious/political agenda.
The two activities are virtually indistinguishable.
TomGee
not sounded the alarm before the British reached the village, the
British would still rule the world and I would have been born into
slavery, most likely.
For you to put out a message of alarm about the terrorism in pursuit of
a religious/political agenda is so silly simply because you're too late
with it. To ignore the calls of alarm is to invite disaster in the
form of simple surprise. The government has just managed to ignore
citizen's calls to rescind the property takeovers by the
government/business/industrial complex, and while the gov. has not yet
publicy tore our limbs asunder and taken innocent lives, it's just a
matter of time for that to happen unless the warnings are taken
seriously.
When I came here to this ng, the terrorists ruled it and ran everyone
off but themselves. Few bothered to fight them tit for tat. Now you
see them running scared from the very few of us who dare to confront
their terrorist way. They are so stupid about what they do that they
don't know they're being terrorists because after all they haven't
killed you and me off yet, right?
Our gov. will throw more of our money away to relocate the Gaza Strip
jews while you and me worry about paying off our mortgage and
collecting our investment in social security benefits. The US will be
bankrupt by the time we leave Iraq, and it may well be that the Sunnis
will own it once again. All that loss of lives because we ignored
Saddam's call to "let the bloodshedding begin..." Generals are always
stupid in war and wars are won because the other side made horrendous
errors in judgement. But the ones who pay for their mistakes are the
soldiers who must do or die. In the meantime, we are being robbed
daily by the oil companies who have the gall to report massive earning
increases since we have been forced to pay more for fuel.
So yes, you're right in saying that Bilge's shitty behaviour is not the
same as what the terrorists did to the twin towers, but if we stop now
the games which the Bilges of today play, we will not have to fear
their real terrorism later, maybe. If we had listened more intently to
the situation brewing in the mideast instead of ignoring it in favor of
one party to the dispute, we may not be facing another 'nam today.
Bilge
>Schoenfeld, he's also a Terrorist who sends your responses to his posts
>to alt.moron and claims he has the right to do that just like other
>terrorists have the right to bomb us in defense of their right to be
>terrorists.
GeeTom, that's fascinating. You are one of the few people who are
astute enough to realize that everyone who posts to usenet will
gladly let you tell them what they can and can't write in their posts
rather live in fear of you labelling them a terrorist for posting
something y which you object. I must say, that was a much simpler solution
for you than trying to post something relevant to this newsgroup.
>He is no different than Min who spews his hatred of democratic rights
>with his lies about his beloved republicans. He is not as literate as
>Min though so he cannot make as good an argument about why he disagrees
>with something as Min does.
That's even more fascinating. I didn't realize that not allowing you to
censor my posts was equivalent to a hatred for democracy. With your keen
understanding of such complex issues, you might be able to secure karl
rove's job if he's forced to accept a pardon and resign should the valerie
plame thing get beyond spin control. In preparation, you should have a
couple of rubber stamps made which reflect your unique world view and
talent for spinning a phrase, once you are in a position to tell people
what they can write in their usenet posts: CENSORED, CENSORDER, GUILTY and
GUILTYER. Using a crayon font here would be a nice way to add your
personal style.
bz
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> When I came here to this ng, the terrorists ruled it and ran everyone
> off but themselves. Few bothered to fight them tit for tat. Now you
> see them running scared from the very few of us who dare to confront
> their terrorist way.
Trolls feed off of attention.
The best way to deal with them is to SILENTLY killfile them.
When their posts receive NO responses, they will go away.
Thomas Smid
> "Thomas Smid" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1124655153.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > I think it is more of a case that Relativists don't like what I am
> > saying. Understandably so, as Relativity feeds many of them and nobody
> > likes his livelihood to be challenged.
> > Besides, science is not done by majority vote but by constantly
> > challenging and revising present theories (otherwise we would for
> > instance still be dabbling about with the Ptolemaic theory of the
> > universe).
>
> You are, of course correct about how science advances.
>
> Show us your experimental data that invalidates relativity [any part of
> it].
>
> Such data must be replicatable by others, so be sure to describe your
> experment, apparatus, as well as giving us complete access to your raw data
> and the methods you used to analyze it.
As I have repeatedly pointed out in this thread (see for instance post
#38), the vectorial velocity addition used in deriving the Lorentz
transformation contradicts the experimental fact that the speed of
light must be independent of the velocity of source or observer. You
would have to ask other people for the data though; I am merely drawing
conclusions here on the basis of what is a generally accepted 'fact'
(as mentioned on my page http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lightspeed.htm
however (the paragraph under the box), the invariance of c should be a
logical consequence of the circumstance that light needs no carrier
medium (otherwise it could obviously not propagate in a vacuum).
Thomas
donsto...@hotmail.com
T Wake
bz
There is a small 'caveat' involving the composition of velocities.
The composition of c with any velocity results in c.
The derivation of the lorentz transform does NOT need to depend on vector
addition of velocities.
Here is a derivation based on "Foundations of Physics" by Lindsay and
Margenau (1936 edition, an oldie but goodie):
Assume two inertial systems, S(stationary) & S'(moving). With S' moving
along their common x axis with constant velocity of u.
Postulate Einsteins 2 postulates: "the same laws of electrodynamics and
optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of
mechanics hold good. and ....that light is always propagated in empty space
with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of
the emitting body."
We define time. It is what is read on a clock located at the event.
All the clocks in a FoR run at the same speed. All are syncronized
by light beam. They are sync'd when they satisfy the following:
[example]
We check two clocks, Ben and Jerry.
We say they are sync when a beam of light traveling between the two clocks
so t1 (start time), t2 (beam from Ben arrives at Jerry) and t1'(beam from
Jerry arrives at Ben) satisfy:
t2-t1 = t1'-t2 or
t2 = 1/2 (t1'+t1)
[end example]
We assume that ALL our clocks, clocks at every point in space, in every
FoR, have been so sync'd with all other clocks in that FoR.
Once they are sync'd, they stay in sync 'cause they keep perfect time.
We have two systems. S and S', with coordinate systems x,y,z,t and
x',y',z', and t'. u and c are velocities.
Our transforms start with y = y' and z = z' 'cause the motion will be
in x. We don't mess wid y and z. See?
At t = 0; t = t'= 0, x = x'= 0, y = y'= 0, z = z'= 0
In other words, the S origin is at the S' origin at the instant when t = 0.
In the S system, its x coordinate at any time t is given by
x = ut so x-ut = 0 is valid at any time.
In the S' system, the motion of the origin S' is given by x'= 0 (the origin
of S' does not move in S').
x-ut = 0 and x'= 0 can be equivalent because they can both describe the
motion of the Origin of S'.
Therefore x-ut = x' or we can write [assuming a linear relationship between
the FoRs coordinates]
a) x'= gamma(x-ut)
[throwing in a proportionaly factor, gamma, that we may need later].
Apply similar argument to motion of the origin of S.
In S the origin is x = 0 and S' is given by x'+ut'= 0.
x'+ut'= x or
b) x = gamma(x'+ut')
If we were describing a newtonian universe, gamma would equal 1.
Let's relate t and t'.
Substitue eqn (a) above into (b) and solve for t'
c) t' = gamma t + ((1-gamma^2)/(u gamma)) x
differentiate wrt x' [eqn (a) above] and wrt t'[eqn (c) above]
d) dx'= gamma(dx - u dt)
e) dt'= gamma dt + ((1-gamma^2)/(u gamma)) dx
dx'/dt' is instantanious velocity wrt S'.
dx/dt has same meaning wrt S.
from (d)&(e) above,
dx'/dt' = (dx-udt)/(dt + ((1-gamma^2)/(u gamma^2))dx
f) = (dx/dt - u)/(1+((1-gamma^2)/(u gamma^2)) dx/dt)
Suppose a particle has the velocity of c in S.
In system S' it must also have the same velocity because the two
coordinate systems were assumed to be inertial wrt each other (no
acceleration, constant velocity). And we postulated c was constant in all
frames.
so dx'/dt' = dx/dt = c
substitute into eqn (f)
c = (c-u)/(1+((1-gamma^2)/(u gamma^2)) c)
solve this equation for gamma
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-(u/c)^2). Which should look familiar.
or
x'= 1/sqrt(1-(u/c)^2)(x-ut), y'=y, z'=z, and
t'= 1/sqrt(1-(u/c)^2)(t-(u/c^2)x)
------------------------------------------
I don't see any vector additions in the above derivation.
You might object that it seems to depend on the assumption of a linear
coordinate system and that distance = velocity * time.
I agree. But those are applied WITHIN a single coordinate system.
That allows us to derive relationships BETWEEN the coordinate systems.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Thomas Smid" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1124797755.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> bz wrote:
> > "Thomas Smid" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > news:1124655153.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > I think it is more of a case that Relativists don't like what I am
> > > saying. Understandably so, as Relativity feeds many of them and nobody
> > > likes his livelihood to be challenged.
> > > Besides, science is not done by majority vote but by constantly
> > > challenging and revising present theories (otherwise we would for
> > > instance still be dabbling about with the Ptolemaic theory of the
> > > universe).
> >
> > You are, of course correct about how science advances.
> >
> > Show us your experimental data that invalidates relativity [any part of
> > it].
> >
> > Such data must be replicatable by others, so be sure to describe your
> > experment, apparatus, as well as giving us complete access to your raw data
> > and the methods you used to analyze it.
>
> As I have repeatedly pointed out in this thread (see for instance post
> #38), the vectorial velocity addition used in deriving the Lorentz
> transformation contradicts the experimental fact that the speed of
> light must be independent of the velocity of source or observer.
But you have not understood the very essential point.
You are sitting in your chair.
You send an object to your right with velocity v
After t seconds the object is at distance t v to you.
A flag happens to be is present at that point.
When the object leaves you, it sends a light signal to your right.
Now you assume that the light signal travels with velocity c
w.r.t. you, so after t seconds the signal is at distance t c to you.
A flag happens to be present at that point.
Now you go and measure te distances to the flags,
and you can also measure the distance between the flags.
The distance between the flags is t c - t v = t (c-v),
so we say that the distance between the object and the
signal was t (c-v) at time t.
We sometimes call the rate c-v the "closing velocity" between the
object and the signal. In the paper Einstein calls it something like
the "relative velocity as seen by you" between the object and the
signal. I would call it the "rate of change of the distance between"
the object and the signal. But if you really don't *like* this concept
or these terms, then just ignore or forget about it and them.
The things that really matter are:
1) Everything we said is perfectly compatible with the fact that
the speed of light is independent of the velocity of source or
observer. Mind you... at this point we have not even used the
fact that the signal has velocity c w.r.t. the object.
2) after time t, the distance between the object and the signal
is t (c-v).
Do you agree with this part?
Dirk Vdm
Thomas Smid
That's exactly what I am talking about: you can't add any other
velocities to c i.e. expression like c+v and c-v (as used in Einsteins
1905 paper; see http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ )
are not allowed.
>
> The derivation of the lorentz transform does NOT need to depend on vector
> addition of velocities.
>
> Here is a derivation based on "Foundations of Physics" by Lindsay and
> Margenau (1936 edition, an oldie but goodie):
>
> Assume two inertial systems, S(stationary) & S'(moving). With S' moving
> along their common x axis with constant velocity of u.
>
> Postulate Einsteins 2 postulates: "the same laws of electrodynamics and
> optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of
> mechanics hold good. and ....that light is always propagated in empty space
> with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of
> the emitting body."
>
> We define time. It is what is read on a clock located at the event.
>
> All the clocks in a FoR run at the same speed. All are syncronized
> by light beam. They are sync'd when they satisfy the following:
> [example]
> We check two clocks, Ben and Jerry.
>
> We say they are sync when a beam of light traveling between the two clocks
> so t1 (start time), t2 (beam from Ben arrives at Jerry) and t1'(beam from
> Jerry arrives at Ben) satisfy:
> t2-t1 = t1'-t2 or
> t2 = 1/2 (t1'+t1)
> [end example]
Why are you defining it this way? Why not simply starting the clocks
simultaneously (e.g. by setting both to zero, taking them in your hands
and pressing the start button at the same time (if you are having
coordination problems with your hands you could use a mechanical device
for this)).
>
> We assume that ALL our clocks, clocks at every point in space, in every
> FoR, have been so sync'd with all other clocks in that FoR.
>
> Once they are sync'd, they stay in sync 'cause they keep perfect time.
>
> We have two systems. S and S', with coordinate systems x,y,z,t and
> x',y',z', and t'. u and c are velocities.
>
> Our transforms start with y = y' and z = z' 'cause the motion will be
> in x. We don't mess wid y and z. See?
>
> At t = 0; t = t'= 0, x = x'= 0, y = y'= 0, z = z'= 0
> In other words, the S origin is at the S' origin at the instant when t = 0.
>
> In the S system, its x coordinate at any time t is given by
> x = ut so x-ut = 0 is valid at any time.
>
> In the S' system, the motion of the origin S' is given by x'= 0 (the origin
> of S' does not move in S').
>
> x-ut = 0 and x'= 0 can be equivalent because they can both describe the
> motion of the Origin of S'.
>
> Therefore x-ut = x' or we can write [assuming a linear relationship between
> the FoRs coordinates]
> a) x'= gamma(x-ut)
But from x'=x-ut and x'=gamma*(x-ut) it follows that gamma=1.
Thomas
Dirk Van de moortel
"Thomas Smid" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1124811925.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
That really seems to be the heart of your problem.
It is the first thing you should understand before you go
any further.
If you are interested in clearing this up, see my reply.
Dirk Vdm
Thomas Smid
> "Thomas Smid" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1124797755.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
You should know in the meanwhile that I don't agree with it.
The example already given by me in an earlier post (#36 by date) shows
that your view (and that of Einstein used in his derivation of the
Lorentz transformation) is not consistent with the fact that the speed
of light must be independent of any velocity of source or observer:
Androcles
It's a well-known troll that nobody bothers with, it can't lunderstand
you anyway.
On the court docket, Science v Einstein.
Judge:
"The defendant stands before this court accused of fraud. How does the
defendant plead?"
Defense counsel:
"Not guilty, your honour."
Prosecution opens:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, good morning.
Please reference: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
The first transformation we are given is the Galilean,
x' = x-vt
y = y
z = z
t = t
You have to agree with that, Einstein states:
"If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k
must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time."
We have completed the transform from the stationary system, K, to the
moving system which I'm going to name k' because Einstein doesn't give
it a name.
"Objection! cries defense counsel.
"Yes?" asks the judge.
"Prosecuting counsel is making up names!" exclaims defense counsel,
"my client has already named the moving system 'k'."
"Why have you changed the name from k to k'?", the judge asks
prosecuting counsel.
Your honour, the name kappa (k) refers to the system of values xi, eta,
zeta, tau which are dependent upon velocity according to the accused
and should not be confused with the system of values x',y,z,t. I merely
chose a suitable name. If the court directs me to use another, I shall
abide by the court's wishes.
"Overruled, it is clear that Einstein gave no name to the system of
values x', y, z and I see no reason why prosecuting counsel should not
do so, do not waste the court's time on trivialities or I shall hold you
in contempt", says the judge.
Prosecution continues.
Applying the Galilean function g(),
For all x in K, x' in k', (x',y,z,t) = g(x,y,z,t).
It is clear, so ist klar, in agreement with experience, it being
immediately apparent and because Einstein says so,
a point at rest in system k' is independent of time.
There can be no function f such that x' = f(t), the judge's bench
will be the same length tomorrow as it is today. Hence there can
be no inverse function t = f^-1(x').
"Objection" cries the defense council.
"Shut up...err...overruled", says the judge, "I've heard this before in
another case. Don't make me hold you in contempt of Mathematics"
Defense council sits, looking sheepish.
Prosecution continues:
We have now completed the transformation from K to k' with the function
g, and can place system K on the back burner.
Now we come to the defendant's transformation. Not Lorentz's,
not Galileo's, but Einstein's own.
For all x in k', xi in kappa, (xi, eta, zeta, tau) = cuckoo(x',y,z,t)
We have a second transformation from the moving system k' to the
moving system kappa.
Einstein would have you believe that
tau = cuckoo_tau(g(x,y,z,t))
xi = cuckoo_xi(g(x,y,z,t))
is called the "Lorentz transformation".
I call it the cuckoo transformation, there is no relative motion between
k' and kappa, the time in k' has been found to be x'/(c-v) and x'/(c+v),
admitted by the defendant in his signed statement: "But the ray moves
relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary
system,
with the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) = t."
"Objection!" cries the defense counsel, "it is universally known that
the velocity of light is c in all inertial frames of reference! It is a
postulate and the basis of my client's theory."
"How say you to that?", asks the judge of the prosecutor.
I can only ask the court's indulgence and request the defense counsel
produce the relevant passage in the evidence before the court, your
honour. The document referred to is "On the Electrodynamics of
Moving Bodies", the author being the defendant, and that authorship
has been stipulated to by both parties.
"The court will recess for lunch", say the judge, "I shall conduct a
computerized search for the term "inertial" in the relevant document.
============Lunch break=============
The clerk cries "Be upstanding in court!" and the judge seats himself.
"I find no reference to defense counsel's claim, the objection is
overruled".
Thank you, your honour. As I was saying:
I call it the cuckoo transformation, there is no relative motion between
k' and kappa, the time in k' has been found to be x'/(c-v) and x'/(c+v),
admitted by the defendant in his statement: "But the ray moves
relatively
to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with
the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) = t".
The only purpose to the function cuckoo_tau is to satisfy Einstein's
fraudulent whim,
"we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A."
Thus it cannot be that x'/(c-v) = x'/(c+v).
As Counsel for the Physicists, I rest my case.
As Counsel for the Mathematicians, we have yet to prove that cuckoo_tau
is not a linear function.
"Objection!" screams the defense, prosecuting counsel is attempting
to prejudice the jury with the use of the word "cuckoo"!
"Sustained", says the judge, " the term 'cuckoo' will be stricken from
the record and the jury is instructed to disregard it."
Sidebar conference is requested by the prosecutor, jury is removed
from the court.
Prosecutor:
Your honour,
Einstein read "Time Machine" by H.G. Wells as a teenager, it was a
current best seller at the time. He became a clerk in the Swiss Patent
Office, saw many patent applications for cuckoo clocks, the main
industry of Switzerland in 1900-1905.
Not too many patents for chocolate or cheese were needed.
He got a hard-on... err... erection for time. The rest of us prefer
women, time is a fetish.
"I'm sustaining the objection",says the judge, "that is conjecture".
As the court pleases. (Prosecutor bows before the judge)
Jury is brought back, prosecution continues:
Here is that proof:
稼tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
(given)
Juror passes a note to the judge via the bailiff. The note reads
"I don't understand this stuff, that equation is too long."
Judge: "The court should recess for 10 minutes."
==========ten minute recess =======
Prosecution continues:
Doubling both sides:
tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
Taking out the t for 3:00pm on a Friday afternoon:
tau(0,0,0,0)+tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v))
Synchronize clocks at t = 0, tau(0,0,0,0) = 0, we remove tau(0,0,0,0)+
tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v))
There is no relative motion between k' and kappa, the coordinate x'
is independent of time. We do not have xi = x'-ut or x' = x'+ut or
any other function xi = fuckup(x') for Lorentz's sake, there is n...
"Objection to 'fuckup' ", says defense counsel, "it's not nice"
"Overruled".
As I was saying, there is no relative motion between k' and kappa,
the coordinate x' is independent of time. We do not have xi = x'-ut
or x' = x'+ut or any other function xi = fuckup(x') for Lorentz's
sake, there is no u, v, w or velocity between system k' and system
kappa.
The time at point zero is the same time at x', same at xi;
no translation between stationary and movng frames, this is the
Hence:
Removing the superfluous coordinates:
tau(a+b) = 2*tau(a)
Renaming tau as f,
f(a+b) = 2f(a) or
篆(a+b) = f(a)
Chosing a > b, we have an example
篆(1+0) = f(1)
"In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear
on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to
space and time." -- Albert Phuckwit/Huckster Einstein.
In the second place tau is not a linear function. -- Androcles.
In the third place there are no coordinates to transform.
In the fourth place you've been had!
I ask the jury to convict Einstein on the charge of fraud.
Prosecution reserves the right to cross-examine the witnesses.
I now rest my case as a mathematician also.
Prosecution counsel whispers to his learned colleague,
"I'd enter him an insanity plea if I were you, he's going down".
Counsel for the defense has the floor.
Androcles
Dirk Van de moortel
"Thomas Smid" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1124813098.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Yes, of course, but I would like to know with which part you
specifically do not agree, so I can understand your reasoning.
>
> The example already given by me in an earlier post (#36 by date) shows
> that your view (and that of Einstein used in his derivation of the
> Lorentz transformation) is not consistent with the fact that the speed
> of light must be independent of any velocity of source or observer:
That post of mine uses the terms "closing speed" and Einstein's
term "relative velocity", and you object to it, but as I said above,
this concept is not necessarry. Just forget it if you like, it really
is not needed.
Let's just concentrate on the part that I have written above for a
minute.
I very explicitly stated:
"Now you assume that the light signal travels with velocity c
w.r.t. you",
so how exactly is *what I have written above* not consistent
with the fact that the speed is assumed to be independent of
any velocity of source or observer?
And what is, according to you, the distance between the object
and the signal after a time t?
If you like, just put your comments in the text, at the exact
place where they apply. You can reply a second time to that
message, to make it more readable.
Dirk Vdm
bz
The expression is allowed as long as it does not mean we are adding the
velocities IN THE PARTICULAR Frame of reference of the object that is
moving or the object it is moving with respect to.
In other words
A ------> B
C
C can compute the velocity of light from A wrt B as c + v or c - v
Neither A nor B will see the light moving at any velocity other than c,
however.
>>
>> The derivation of the lorentz transform does NOT need to depend on
>> vector addition of velocities.
>>
>> Here is a derivation based on "Foundations of Physics" by Lindsay and
>> Margenau (1936 edition, an oldie but goodie):
>>
>> Assume two inertial systems, S(stationary) & S'(moving). With S'
>> moving along their common x axis with constant velocity of u.
>>
>> Postulate Einsteins 2 postulates: "the same laws of electrodynamics and
>> optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the
>> equations of mechanics hold good. and ....that light is always
>> propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
>> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
>>
>> We define time. It is what is read on a clock located at the event.
>>
>> All the clocks in a FoR run at the same speed. All are syncronized
>> by light beam. They are sync'd when they satisfy the following:
>> [example]
>> We check two clocks, Ben and Jerry.
>>
>> We say they are sync when a beam of light traveling between the two
>> clocks so t1 (start time), t2 (beam from Ben arrives at Jerry) and
>> t1'(beam from Jerry arrives at Ben) satisfy:
>> t2-t1 = t1'-t2 or
>> t2 = 1/2 (t1'+t1)
>> [end example]
>
>
> Why are you defining it this way?
Read that paper of Einstein's again. See the section where he sets forth
how to syncronize clocks.
> Why not simply starting the clocks
> simultaneously (e.g. by setting both to zero, taking them in your hands
> and pressing the start button at the same time (if you are having
> coordination problems with your hands you could use a mechanical device
> for this)).
Because we need clocks at all points in our FoR in order to know the time
at all points in that inertial FoR. I don't have that many hands and my
arms are not long enough to reach all of the FoR.
>> We assume that ALL our clocks, clocks at every point in space, in every
>> FoR, have been so sync'd with all other clocks in that FoR.
>>
>> Once they are sync'd, they stay in sync 'cause they keep perfect time.
>>
>> We have two systems. S and S', with coordinate systems x,y,z,t and
>> x',y',z', and t'. u and c are velocities.
>>
>> Our transforms start with y = y' and z = z' 'cause the motion will be
>> in x. We don't mess wid y and z. See?
>>
>> At t = 0; t = t'= 0, x = x'= 0, y = y'= 0, z = z'= 0
>> In other words, the S origin is at the S' origin at the instant when t
>> = 0.
>>
>> In the S system, its x coordinate at any time t is given by
>> x = ut so x-ut = 0 is valid at any time.
>
>>
>> In the S' system, the motion of the origin S' is given by x'= 0 (the
>> origin of S' does not move in S').
>>
>> x-ut = 0 and x'= 0 can be equivalent because they can both describe the
>> motion of the Origin of S'.
>>
>> Therefore x-ut = x' or we can write [assuming a linear relationship
>> between the FoRs coordinates]
>> a) x'= gamma(x-ut)
>
> But from x'=x-ut and x'=gamma*(x-ut) it follows that gamma=1.
gamma = 1 is a specific solution and works for a newtonian universe.
We need to hold off on assigning a value to gamma for a while.
If gamma is 1, we can certainly multiply by it.
If it is not 1, then we can still multiply by it.
You may as "why bother multiplying by 1?"
Because I find it useful at times.
5.08 cm x (1 inch/2.54 cm) = 2 inch
makes 'multiplying by 1' a useful exercise as there is no doubt that 1
inch/2.54 cm = 1, right?
Dirk Van de moortel
"bz" <bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns96BB8384B798FWQ...@130.39.198.139...
I think this is not the good way to express it at this stage.
You should at least use the terms "closing velocity between"
or "relative velocity between", or just not introduce the
concept at all, as I suggested in my reply to Thomas.
Maybe we can work from there...
> Neither A nor B will see the light moving at any velocity other than c,
> however.
Indeed, that is what we are trying to explain...
Dirk Vdm
bz
in news:mBJOe.176623$1f1.9...@phobos.telenet-ops.be:
>
> "bz" <bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
> news:Xns96BB8384B798FWQ...@130.39.198.139...
>> "Thomas Smid" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:1124811925.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
....
>> > velocities to c i.e. expression like c+v and c-v (as used in
>> > Einsteins 1905 paper; see
>> > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ ) are not
>> > allowed.
>>
>> The expression is allowed as long as it does not mean we are adding the
>> velocities IN THE PARTICULAR Frame of reference of the object that is
>> moving or the object it is moving with respect to.
>>
>> In other words
>>
>> A ------> B
>>
>>
>> C
>>
>> C can compute the velocity of light from A wrt B as c + v or c - v
>
> I think this is not the good way to express it at this stage.
I understand and agree.... but for the purpose of making the point....
> You should at least use the terms "closing velocity between"
> or "relative velocity between", or just not introduce the
> concept at all, as I suggested in my reply to Thomas.
> Maybe we can work from there...
I understand the reason for your caution, however I wanted to bring home to
him, in the most straightforward way possible, the fact that the 'apparent
closing velocity' is seen by a third party. 'C', in this case, sees only
an apparent velocity.
If C know the locations of A and B and their motion wrt C, C can then use
the LT to compute the velocity that A and B would actually observe. That
would be [of course] c.
>> Neither A nor B will see the light moving at any velocity other than c,
>> however.
>
> Indeed, that is what we are trying to explain...
Perhaps he will now understand the point.
It is not subtile, but it seems to elude some.
Dirk Van de moortel
"bz" <bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns96BBAAE938630WQ...@130.39.198.139...
Yes, but I'd like to wait with this until the matter of the
"distance as seen by C between the object and the signal
at some time" is settled. That is absolutely essential.
>
> If C know the locations of A and B and their motion wrt C, C can then use
> the LT to compute the velocity that A and B would actually observe. That
> would be [of course] c.
Sure, but before we get to the LT, the basics must be clear.
>
> >> Neither A nor B will see the light moving at any velocity other than c,
> >> however.
> >
> > Indeed, that is what we are trying to explain...
>
> Perhaps he will now understand the point.
> It is not subtile, but it seems to elude some.
Perhaps that is because they have pre-knowledge of where
the text is heading. They know that something called
"velocity composition" will be one of the results, and when
they see those things x'/(c+v) and x'/(c-v), they stagger,
which I find quite understandable... when I first saw it,
I produced a considerable frown as well.
So it boils down to veru carefully explaining why the
"velocity composition" is not used in this case.
This goes to the heart of the problem.
It might be simple once you understand it, but I *do*
think it is very subtle.
Dirk Vdm
bz
Yes. C does not see where A and B are 'NOW', C only knows where they once
were. And, of course, C can't see the signal as it passes from A to B.
>> If C know the locations of A and B and their motion wrt C, C can then
>> use the LT to compute the velocity that A and B would actually observe.
>> That would be [of course] c.
>
> Sure, but before we get to the LT, the basics must be clear.
Agreed.
>> >> Neither A nor B will see the light moving at any velocity other than
>> >> c, however.
>> >
>> > Indeed, that is what we are trying to explain...
>>
>> Perhaps he will now understand the point.
>> It is not subtile, but it seems to elude some.
>
> Perhaps that is because they have pre-knowledge of where
> the text is heading. They know that something called
> "velocity composition" will be one of the results, and when
> they see those things x'/(c+v) and x'/(c-v), they stagger,
> which I find quite understandable... when I first saw it,
> I produced a considerable frown as well.
And the derivation usually makes me even tenser.
> So it boils down to veru carefully explaining why the
> "velocity composition" is not used in this case.
Agreed. How would you suggest it be said?
> This goes to the heart of the problem.
> It might be simple once you understand it, but I *do*
> think it is very subtle.
I am still working at understanding SR.
Harry
Indeed, the way Einstein discussed that point in 1905 is correct and anyway
all relative velocities are apparent since they all depend on one's choice
of reference frame.
As long as you state that it's the velocity of light from A relative to B
*in the rest frame of C*, it should be no problem for others to understand
it - at least not for those whose brains are not messed up by the
"lightspeed is always c" mantra but are able to grasp three independent
references in one situation... ;-)
Harald
Dirk Van de moortel
"bz" <bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns96BBCFBE1CF27WQ...@130.39.198.139...
I assume that with A you mean a moving source object, and
with B the light signal [ - if that is not the case, I propose we
wait until later with this in order to avoid confusing Thomas].
Yes, indeed C can not *see* where A and B are 'now', but
C can *know* where A and B are 'now', or where they were
'a while ago', or where they will be 'later'.
He can know these things by making measurements of effects
of the signal, or by already knowing the speeds (defined as
distances to himself, divided by time durations on his own clock).
The seeing part is not important.
> And, of course, C can't see the signal as it passes from A to B.
>
> >> If C know the locations of A and B and their motion wrt C, C can then
> >> use the LT to compute the velocity that A and B would actually observe.
> >> That would be [of course] c.
> >
> > Sure, but before we get to the LT, the basics must be clear.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >> >> Neither A nor B will see the light moving at any velocity other than
> >> >> c, however.
> >> >
> >> > Indeed, that is what we are trying to explain...
> >>
> >> Perhaps he will now understand the point.
> >> It is not subtile, but it seems to elude some.
> >
> > Perhaps that is because they have pre-knowledge of where
> > the text is heading. They know that something called
> > "velocity composition" will be one of the results, and when
> > they see those things x'/(c+v) and x'/(c-v), they stagger,
> > which I find quite understandable... when I first saw it,
> > I produced a considerable frown as well.
>
> And the derivation usually makes me even tenser.
>
> > So it boils down to veru carefully explaining why the
> > "velocity composition" is not used in this case.
>
> Agreed. How would you suggest it be said?
By carefully not using the velocity (or speed) concept at all,
until it is absolutely clear where the expressions c-v and c+v
come from. They just come from subtracting (directly
measurable distances) from one another. That is essential.
The fact that these things happen to have the dimension of
a speed is of no importance at all, and it is not even used in
the derivation that follows.
That is what I am trying to explain to Thomas. Many have
the same problem...
Let's see what Thomas replies first.
>
> > This goes to the heart of the problem.
> > It might be simple once you understand it, but I *do*
> > think it is very subtle.
>
> I am still working at understanding SR.
I'm still working at understanding how so many can
misunderstand it in so many ways, and at trying to find a
way to help explaining :-)
Dirk Vdm
Harry
"Thomas Smid" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124811925.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> bz wrote:
SNIP
> > We check two clocks, Ben and Jerry.
> >
> > We say they are sync when a beam of light traveling between the two
clocks
> > so t1 (start time), t2 (beam from Ben arrives at Jerry) and t1'(beam
from
> > Jerry arrives at Ben) satisfy:
> > t2-t1 = t1'-t2 or
> > t2 = 1/2 (t1'+t1)
> > [end example]
>
>
> Why are you defining it this way? Why not simply starting the clocks
> simultaneously (e.g. by setting both to zero, taking them in your hands
> and pressing the start button at the same time (if you are having
> coordination problems with your hands you could use a mechanical device
> for this)).
The problem - as was already known at that time from papers about first
order approximations - is that simultaneity depends on one's chosen frame of
reference, and according to the PoR no matter what instrument is used. Thus
simultaneity itself must be defined, and that is exactly what is being done
here. If you don't understand that point, it may be related to the other
point about velocity addition which you also didn't understand.
SNIP
> > Therefore x-ut = x' or we can write [assuming a linear relationship
between
> > the FoRs coordinates]
> > a) x'= gamma(x-ut)
>
> But from x'=x-ut and x'=gamma*(x-ut) it follows that gamma=1.
Well seen: x'=x-ut does not apply here and should have been either left out
or accompanied by "in classical physics ...".
Cheers,
Harald
Harry
Fine; note that you chose to make a change of reference frame - which
implies a change of calibration of units as well as of synchronization.
> Now the speed of light must be independent of the state of motion of
> the source, that is if the latter is at the same point as before when
> emitting the light signal (i.e. at a distance x from the observer), the
> signal must reach the observer again after a time T=x/c irrespective of
> the velocity v of the source. This is obviously different from what a
> vectorial velocity addition would yield (if the source would emit a
> particle with velocity w, it would reach the observer after a time
> T=x/(w-v) if the source is receding from the observer and T=x/(w+v) if
> approaching the observer)."
Sure, nobody would suggest that in SRT one could switch to another frame of
reference and use vectorial velocity addition in the process. Vectorial
velocity addition (in fact all standard additions) only works with one and
the same consistent set of units. So? You can add apples to apples, but you
can't add apples to pears!
Harald
Dirk Van de moortel
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:430c285c$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
> "Thomas Smid" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1124811925.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > bz wrote:
[snip]
>
> SNIP
>
> > > Therefore x-ut = x' or we can write [assuming a linear relationship
> > > between the FoRs coordinates]
> > > a) x'= gamma(x-ut)
> >
> > But from x'=x-ut and x'=gamma*(x-ut) it follows that gamma=1.
>
> Well seen: x'=x-ut does not apply here and should have been either left out
> or accompanied by "in classical physics ...".
No, not well seen, since x' = x-ut *does* apply when both
parts of the equation happen to be zero.
It was explicitly stated in the sentence:
| "x-ut = 0 and x'= 0 can be equivalent because they can
| both describe the motion of the Origin of S'."
You haven't understood the derivation.
It says that :
1) the worldline of S' must transform from
x - ut = 0 in the unprimed system, to
x' = 0 in the primed system,
2) the relation between the coordinates is linear,
therefore there must be a gamma such that
x'= gamma(x-ut)
This is elementary linear algebra.
Dirk Vdm
Thomas Smid
It is *not* the distance between the light signal and the moving
object. With regard to the moving object, the light signal must travel
with speed c, so the distance in its frame must be c*t. What you have
calculated is the distance between the light signal and the chair minus
the the distance between the object and the chair. This is not the same
in view of the invariance of c. You have to consider both frames
separately to each other and can not perform the usual Galilei
tansformation between the frames (this is exactly the error Einstein
made in his consideration as well).
Thomas
Dirk Van de moortel
"Thomas Smid" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1124875746....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It is the distance between the two flags as I explained above.
I will try to clarify below...
> With regard to the moving object, the light signal must travel
> with speed c, so the distance in its frame must be c*t.
Yes, but at this stage we are not considering the point of
view of the moving object yet. That comes later.
At this point, it does not matter yet that "with regard to the
moving object, the light signal must travel with speed c".
Just forget this viewpoint for a while. Patience...
>What you have
> calculated is the distance between the light signal and the chair minus
> the the distance between the object and the chair.
Yes, precisely - that is the point I am actually trying to make.
See below....
> This is not the same
> in view of the invariance of c. You have to consider both frames
> separately to each other and can not perform the usual Galilei
> tansformation between the frames (this is exactly the error Einstein
> made in his consideration as well).
As I said, forget the frame of the object for a while.
At this point, we only consider your frame.
The part I explained above, is *only* considering your frame
and your viewpoint.
Just imagine yourself again sitting in your chair,
- measuring distances between flags and *yourself*,
- measuring times on *your* clock, and
- defining speeds by dividing
"distances according to you" by
"time durations according to you".
OK?
If yes, let's arefully go through the process again, carefully
keeping the above in mind...
1) You know that the object has speed v (with the
above definition of speed!), so you know that after a
time t has passed, the object is at distance t v.
Keep this place in mind. Arrange things such that a flag
is present at that place.
OK?
If not, where is the object according to you and where
would the flag be?
Otherwise, if yes, we continue:
2) You assume (-from experimental evidence like you
suggested-) that the signal has speed c (with the above
definition of speed), so you know that after a time t has
passed, the signal is at distance t c (with the above
definition of distance!).
Keep this place in mind as well, by arrange things such
that a flag is present at that place.
OK?
If not, where is the signal according to you and where
would the flag be?
Otherwise, if yes, we continue:
3) Now you see two flags and you go and you calculate
the difference of these distances.
You find the difference t c - t v.
OK?
If not, what difference will you find?
Otherwise, if yes, we continue:
4) Put yourself at rest at the first flag and measure the
distance to the second flag. You will measure a distance
t c - t v.
OK?
If not, what distance will you measure and why?
Otherwise, if yes, we continue:
5) Put yourself at rest at the second flag and measure the
distance to the first flag. You will measure a distance
t c - t v.
OK?
If not, what distance will you measure and why?
Otherwise, if yes, we continue:
6) You decide that now, in *your* frame, with your
original definitions of distance, time and speeds, it is
okay to officially expand the original definition of
"distance with respect to yourself", and define the
"distance between the flags according to you" to be
t c - t v.
OK?
If not, why not?
If yes, we continue:
7) Since the distance between the flags is t c - t v, you say that
"after time t, the distance between the object and the signal
was t c - t v"
OK?
If you agree on this we can continue, otherwise we will
have to clear it up where we got stuck.
Dirk Vdm
Thomas Smid
x'=x-ut is nothing but the Galilei transformation between the
coordinates of an object in two reference frames moving relatively to
each other (i.e. it connects arbitray values of x' and x to each
other). First of all, this is inappropriate for light signals (see my
post just above this one; #90 by date). Furthermore, rearranging the
equation to x-x'=ut and inserting this into the proposed second
equation, we have x'=gamma*(x-x+x') i.e. x'=gamma*x' and hence gamma=1.
This is just straightforward maths and does not leave any room for a
different value of gamma, so I am afraid the derivation of the gamma
factor Bz quoted in post #73 (by date) is mathematically flawed (at
least as far as my understanding of maths goes).
Thomas
Dirk Van de moortel
"Thomas Smid" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1124880081.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
It happens to be the same equation as a Galilei transformation,
but that is just because both sides of the equation are zero.
In this context, the equation
x' = x - u t
is valid only for those events for which the coordinates
satisfy *both* the equations:
x - u t = 0
(equation of motion of origin S' in the unprimed
reference frame)
and
x' = 0
(equation of motion of origin S' in the primed
reference frame).
The only events with coordinates x, t, and x' that satisfy both
these equations, are events that take place on the origin of S'.
*Only in this context* the equation x' = x - u t happens to
be valid. It is not valid for *all* events you can imagine.
Then, since a linear relation is assumed between the coordinates
of *all* events with *any* value of x and t (and corresponding
x' and later t'), this specific information that *some* events must
satisfy
x - u t = 0
x' = 0 ,
is used to deduce that there must be some number gamma,
such that
x' = gamma (x - u t)
When you learn the basics of linear algebra and analytical
geometry, you will see indeed that this is correct.
Do you want a simple proof of the above?
Dirk Vdm
Thomas Smid
It can not come later. This is exactly the point with light signals
that you can not calculate the coordinate first in one reference frame
and then transform it to another frame.
As I have said before, whatever you flag out for the positions of the
light signal in the rest frame is one thing, but it has nothing to do
with the positions an observer in a reference frame moving relatively
to you would flag out. If you would take a snapshot of both reference
frames then the flags corresponding to a particular time t would be in
different positions in both frames (for the moving observer the flags
in your frame would be irrelevant).
Thomas
Thomas Smid
What would be the point of restricting the resultant Lorentz
transformation
x'= 1/sqrt(1-(u/c)^2)(x-ut)
to x'=0? Certainly you want it to hold for all values of x and t and
hence x' can not be identically zero.
Thomas
Thomas
Dirk Van de moortel
"Thomas Smid" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1124881131.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > "Thomas Smid" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1124875746....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> > > With regard to the moving object, the light signal must travel
> > > with speed c, so the distance in its frame must be c*t.
> >
> > Yes, but at this stage we are not considering the point of
> > view of the moving object yet. That comes later.
> > At this point, it does not matter yet that "with regard to the
> > moving object, the light signal must travel with speed c".
> > Just forget this viewpoint for a while. Patience...
>
> It can not come later. This is exactly the point with light signals
> that you can not calculate the coordinate first in one reference frame
> and then transform it to another frame.
But we haven't arrive at transforming at this stage.
We only consider one single frame.
Forget about the other frame, and just try to follow the reasoning,
step by step. You go too fast...
[snip]
> > OK?
> >
> > If you agree on this we can continue, otherwise we will
> > have to clear it up where we got stuck.
>
> As I have said before, whatever you flag out for the positions of the
> light signal in the rest frame is one thing, but it has nothing to do
> with the positions an observer in a reference frame moving relatively
> to you would flag out.
But we are *not* considering such an observer at this
stage. We first consider the stationary observer *only*.
Perhaps later we will go to the other.
So, carefull and critically (!) try to follow the reasoning
that I laid out, and try to put aside all your pre-knowledge
of what is coming.
Just go step by step and reply to that message again
telliing me exactly at which of the steps 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 you
agree or don't agree and what you would suggest.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Thomas Smid" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1124881918.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Of course. Precisely.
The point would be for instance to check whether that
transformartion equation
x' = 1/sqrt(1-(u/c)^2) ( x - u t ) ,
which is valid for *all* possible events, is also valid
for the *special* events that satisfy the equation
x' = 0.
Indeed, when you combine the two above equations,
you find that they can only go together if
x - u t = 0
which precisely is a relationship between the unprimed
coordintes of those *same* special events, namely, all
the events that take place on the origin of the primed
system S' itself.
Likewise, if you would take events for wich the
coordinates happen to satisfy the realtionship
x' = 12,
then obviously the transformation equation tells you
that the primed coordinates of these events must satisfy
the equation
x - u t = 12 sqrt(1-u^2/c^2).
Again, all this is very elementary.
But perhaps we should postpone this until we reach
(or don't reach) an agreement over that other part,
which is even more elementary...
Dirk Vdm
Thomas Smid
As I have indicated, the steps are OK if you want to know the
positional differences of the light signal and the moving observer in
your frame, but they are irrelevant for the position of the light
signal in the moving observers frame (which is simply given by c*t).
Thomas
Dirk Van de moortel
"Thomas Smid" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1124883275.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Absolutely. No problem about that. I fully agree.
But we haven't *reached* talking about the moving observers
frame yet. We cannot talk about it as long as we don't agree on
the stationnary observer.
So, to make sure that we understand each other, do you
fully agree with point 7?
7) Since the distance between the flags is t c - t v, you say that
"after time t, the distance between the object and the signal
was t c - t v".
Just Yes or No...
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:R%YOe.177163$mU6.9...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>
> "Thomas Smid" <thoma...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1124883275.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> > As I have indicated, the steps are OK if you want to know the
> > positional differences of the light signal and the moving observer in
> > your frame, but they are irrelevant for the position of the light
> > signal in the moving observers frame (which is simply given by c*t).
>
> Absolutely. No problem about that. I fully agree.
Actually, I only agree, if you would say that it is simply
given by c t' (or c tau) where t' (or tau) would be the time
on the moving observer's clock.
But that's for later. Let's concentrate on the stationnary
observer (you, sitting in your chair) only...
Dirk Vdm