Fizeau, Einstein, Lorentz and the Muon
Peter Riedt
A muon descending to the surface of the earth travels at .99c or
297000km/sec. The earth is also moving, at least at 30km/sec.
According to the Galilean addition of speeds v3=v1+v2 the combined
speed of the muon and the earth is 297030km/sec (case 1) but
according to the formula v3=(v1+v2)/(1+(v1*v2) which AE derived from
the 1851 experiments of Fizeau, the combined speed of the muon and the
earth is 297000.6km/sec (case 2). If we follow the descent of the muon
from a height of 20km above the earth, the impact of the muon upon the
earth occurs in case 1 after 0.000067333266 seconds (time 1) and in
case 2 in 0.0000673399313 seconds (time 2) but if the time dilation
formula T'=T/sqrt(1-vv/cc) of Lorentz is applied to time 1 and 2, the
times become 0.000479705428691 seconds (time 3) and 0.000477407619720
seconds (time 4) respectively. There are now four different times to
choose from none of which can ever be verified by any experiment with
any tools at our disposal now or in the future. What can be said with
certainty however is that three of the times are incorrect. Therefore,
if Galileo is correct, Lorentz and AE are wrong. If AE’s addition of
speeds formula is correct, then Galileo’s addition of speeds formula
and Lorentz’s time dilation formula are wrong. If the Lorentz time
dilation formula is correct, Galileo’s and AE’s addition of speeds
formulas are wrong. At the very least, the Lorentz transforms and
AE’s speed addition formula contradict each other.
Peter Riedt
Whoever
news:ef4ca80c-f809-4681...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> Fizeau, Einstein, Lorentz and the Muon
>
> A muon descending to the surface of the earth travels at .99c or
> 297000km/sec. The earth is also moving, at least at 30km/sec.
> According to the Galilean addition of speeds v3=v1+v2 the combined
> speed of the muon and the earth is 297030km/sec (case 1) but
> according to the formula v3=(v1+v2)/(1+(v1*v2) which AE derived from
> the 1851 experiments of Fizeau, the combined speed of the muon and the
> earth is 297000.6km/sec (case 2). If we follow the descent of the muon
> from a height of 20km above the earth, the impact of the muon upon the
> earth occurs in case 1 after 0.000067333266 seconds (time 1) and in
> case 2 in 0.0000673399313 seconds (time 2) but if the time dilation
> formula T'=T/sqrt(1-vv/cc) of Lorentz is applied to time 1 and 2, the
> times become 0.000479705428691 seconds (time 3) and 0.000477407619720
> seconds (time 4) respectively. There are now four different times to
> choose from none of which can ever be verified by any experiment with
> any tools at our disposal now or in the future. What can be said with
> certainty however is that three of the times are incorrect. Therefore,
> speeds formula is correct, then Galileo�s addition of speeds formula
> and Lorentz�s time dilation formula are wrong. If the Lorentz time
> dilation formula is correct, Galileo�s and AE�s addition of speeds
> formulas are wrong. At the very least, the Lorentz transforms and
Your confusion is only an indication of your confusion .. not of any
inherent problem. LT and speed composition are derived form each other, so
your assertion is wrong. Try again.
Peter Riedt
> "Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:ef4ca80c-f809-4681...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Fizeau, Einstein, Lorentz and the Muon
>
> > A muon descending to the surface of the earth travels at .99c or
> > 297000km/sec. The earth is also moving, at least at 30km/sec.
> > According to the Galilean addition of speeds v3=v1+v2 the combined
> > speed of the muon and the earth is 297030km/sec (case 1) but
> > according to the formula v3=(v1+v2)/(1+(v1*v2) which AE derived from
> > the 1851 experiments of Fizeau, the combined speed of the muon and the
> > earth is 297000.6km/sec (case 2). If we follow the descent of the muon
> > from a height of 20km above the earth, the impact of the muon upon the
> > earth occurs in case 1 after 0.000067333266 seconds (time 1) and in
> > case 2 in 0.0000673399313 seconds (time 2) but if the time dilation
> > formula T'=T/sqrt(1-vv/cc) of Lorentz is applied to time 1 and 2, the
> > times become 0.000479705428691 seconds (time 3) and 0.000477407619720
> > seconds (time 4) respectively. There are now four different times to
> > choose from none of which can ever be verified by any experiment with
> > any tools at our disposal now or in the future. What can be said with
> > certainty however is that three of the times are incorrect. Therefore,
> > speeds formula is correct, then Galileo’s addition of speeds formula
> > and Lorentz’s time dilation formula are wrong. If the Lorentz time
> > dilation formula is correct, Galileo’s and AE’s addition of speeds
> > formulas are wrong. At the very least, the Lorentz transforms and
>
> Your confusion is only an indication of your confusion .. not of any
> inherent problem. LT and speed composition are derived form each other, so
>
> - Show quoted text -
Whoever, it is no assertion. The fact is that the Lorentz time
dilation formula is inconsistent with AE's speed formula. Just look at
the results of the two formulas.
Peter Riedt
Androcles
Peter Riedt
=========================================
Just kill-file the troll, Peter. His assertion that LT is derived from
speed composition and speed composition is derived from LT
shows what a babbling clueless idiot he truly is.
Unless you are looking for a flame war, of course, because that's
all it will come to.
Whoever
news:rQRhm.194279$fS3....@newsfe05.ams2...
Yes it is
> The fact is that the Lorentz time
> dilation formula is inconsistent with AE's speed formula. Just look at
> the results of the two formulas.
Which just shows you do not understand it. You only get to apply the
formulas once. The speed composition gives you the answer that you'd get
doing it the hard way via Lorentz transforms. So effectively, by doing
both, you've applied the transform twice.
eric gisse
[snip]
>At the very least, the Lorentz transforms and
> AE?s speed addition formula contradict each other.
>
> Peter Riedt
SO(3,1)
Now go away until you can find a self contradiction in group theory.
Peter Riedt
Eric, ignoring the facts is not a good argument nor is obfuscating
with 'group theory'. It is indicative that you have no answer to
explain this inconsistency in SR.
Peter Riedt
Inertial
What inconsistency?
Androcles
"Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote in message
news:02991667$0$20651$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
The one that the moron Gisse snipped so he wouldn't have to face reality,
you ignorant prat.
Dirk Van de moortel
> Fizeau, Einstein, Lorentz and the Muon
>
> A muon descending to the surface of the earth travels at .99c or
> 297000km/sec. The earth is also moving, at least at 30km/sec.
> According to the Galilean addition of speeds v3=v1+v2 the combined
> speed of the muon and the earth is 297030km/sec (case 1) but
> according to the formula v3=(v1+v2)/(1+(v1*v2) which AE derived from
> the 1851 experiments of Fizeau, the combined speed of the muon and the
> earth is 297000.6km/sec (case 2). If we follow the descent of the muon
> from a height of 20km above the earth, the impact of the muon upon the
> earth occurs in case 1 after 0.000067333266 seconds (time 1) and in
> case 2 in 0.0000673399313 seconds (time 2) but if the time dilation
> formula T'=T/sqrt(1-vv/cc) of Lorentz is applied to time 1 and 2, the
> times become 0.000479705428691 seconds (time 3) and 0.000477407619720
> seconds (time 4) respectively. There are now four different times to
> choose from none of which can ever be verified by any experiment with
> any tools at our disposal now or in the future. What can be said with
> certainty however is that three of the times are incorrect. Therefore,
> speeds formula is correct, then Galileo�s addition of speeds formula
> and Lorentz�s time dilation formula are wrong. If the Lorentz time
> dilation formula is correct, Galileo�s and AE�s addition of speeds
> formulas are wrong. At the very least, the Lorentz transforms and
>
> Peter Riedt
48 years down the drain:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/48years.html
Dirk Vdm
Sue...
What does experiment indicate?
"Modified Sagnac experiment for measuring travel-time
difference between counter-propagating light beams
in a uniformly moving fiber" --
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609222
Sue...
>
> Peter Riedt
eric gisse
You don't know what group theory is, so please don't argue.
>
> Peter Riedt
Jenny
> You don't know what group theory is, so please don't argue.
Eric, you argue about everything so you must know everything.
Can you answer this for me?
How fast must a trillion bombs riiiight next to your light cone move
in order to stay forever out of your light cone so you could never,
ever know about them?
Love,
Jenny
eric gisse
> On Aug 17, 6:35 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You don't know what group theory is, so please don't argue.
>
> Eric, you argue about everything so you must know everything.
Not my fault people are arguing with a knowledge base that peaked at what is
taught in high school.
[...]
Peter Riedt
Lorentz time dilation formula.
Peter Riedt
Peter Riedt
>
>
>
>
>
> > Fizeau, Einstein, Lorentz and the Muon
>
> > A muon descending to the surface of the earth travels at .99c or
> > 297000km/sec. The earth is also moving, at least at 30km/sec.
> > According to the Galilean addition of speeds v3=v1+v2 the combined
> > speed of the muon and the earth is 297030km/sec (case 1) but
> > according to the formula v3=(v1+v2)/(1+(v1*v2) which AE derived from
> > the 1851 experiments of Fizeau, the combined speed of the muon and the
> > earth is 297000.6km/sec (case 2). If we follow the descent of the muon
> > from a height of 20km above the earth, the impact of the muon upon the
> > earth occurs in case 1 after 0.000067333266 seconds (time 1) and in
> > case 2 in 0.0000673399313 seconds (time 2) but if the time dilation
> > formula T'=T/sqrt(1-vv/cc) of Lorentz is applied to time 1 and 2, the
> > times become 0.000479705428691 seconds (time 3) and 0.000477407619720
> > seconds (time 4) respectively. There are now four different times to
> > choose from none of which can ever be verified by any experiment with
> > any tools at our disposal now or in the future. What can be said with
> > certainty however is that three of the times are incorrect. Therefore,
> > speeds formula is correct, then Galileo’s addition of speeds formula
> > and Lorentz’s time dilation formula are wrong. If the Lorentz time
> > dilation formula is correct, Galileo’s and AE’s addition of speeds
> > formulas are wrong. At the very least, the Lorentz transforms and
>
> > Peter Riedt
>
> 48 years down the drain:
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/48years.html
Dirk, if that is all you can come up with I must be right.
Peter Riedt
>
> Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
Inertial
One includes the other .. there is no 'against' involved. If you apply
both, that is equivalent applying the Lorentz Transforms twice .. you won't
get the correct answers by doing silly things.
Koobee Wublee
What you referred to as AE’s velocity transform was already worked out
by Voigt in 1887. That would be 6 years after Michelson’s solo
experiment; the same years as Michelson’s verification of his earlier
experiment with Morley’s help; 18 years before Einstein the nitwit,
the plagiarist, and the liar published his plagiarized works. <shrug>
The velocity transform is indeed the same under either the Voigt
transform or the Lorentz transform. Both transforms do predict the
null results of the MMX. However, the Voigt transform only satisfies
the principle of relativity at low speed, and the Lorentz transform
manifests this troublesome time dilation thing as you have mentioned.
To be a good scientist, he must examine the mathematics and the logics
that led to the mathematical conclusion in the first place, and yet
the self-styled physicists today embrace the Lorentz transform over
the Voigt transform on the ground that the time dilation observed
through the Lorentz transform is not predicted by the Voigt
transform. Thus, without any more clues in their very limited
intellectual capability, they chose and hypnotized themselves
generations after generations to ignore the mathematical self-
contradiction in the Lorentz transform. Two such contradictions are
the twins’ paradox and
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/f15c6901ead8635c?hl=en#
There have been numerous claims to have resolved the twins’ paradox.
Yet, each one contradicts with all the others. Instead of raising
concerns, the self-styled physicists absurdly concluded that among
these so-called resolutions, there must be one valid one to address
the twins’ paradox. Is expecting the self-styled physicists to have
more integrity than that too much to ask?
Inertial
news:c0b3144f-9d49-413f...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 15, 8:43 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> A muon descending to the surface of the earth travels at .99c or
>> 297000km/sec. The earth is also moving, at least at 30km/sec.
>> According to the Galilean addition of speeds v3=v1+v2 the combined
>> speed of the muon and the earth is 297030km/sec (case 1) but
>> according to the formula v3=(v1+v2)/(1+(v1*v2) which AE derived from
>> the 1851 experiments of Fizeau, the combined speed of the muon and the
>> earth is 297000.6km/sec (case 2). If we follow the descent of the muon
>> from a height of 20km above the earth, the impact of the muon upon the
>> earth occurs in case 1 after 0.000067333266 seconds (time 1) and in
>> case 2 in 0.0000673399313 seconds (time 2) but if the time dilation
>> formula T'=T/sqrt(1-vv/cc) of Lorentz is applied to time 1 and 2, the
>> times become 0.000479705428691 seconds (time 3) and 0.000477407619720
>> seconds (time 4) respectively. There are now four different times to
>> choose from none of which can ever be verified by any experiment with
>> any tools at our disposal now or in the future. What can be said with
>> certainty however is that three of the times are incorrect. Therefore,
>> speeds formula is correct, then Galileo�s addition of speeds formula
>> and Lorentz�s time dilation formula are wrong. If the Lorentz time
>> dilation formula is correct, Galileo�s and AE�s addition of speeds
>> formulas are wrong. At the very least, the Lorentz transforms and
>
> What you referred to as AE�s velocity transform was already worked out
> by Voigt in 1887. That would be 6 years after Michelson�s solo
> experiment; the same years as Michelson�s verification of his earlier
> experiment with Morley�s help; 18 years before Einstein the nitwit,
> the plagiarist, and the liar published his plagiarized works. <shrug>
>
> The velocity transform is indeed the same under either the Voigt
> transform or the Lorentz transform. Both transforms do predict the
> null results of the MMX. However, the Voigt transform only satisfies
> the principle of relativity at low speed, and the Lorentz transform
> manifests this troublesome time dilation thing as you have mentioned.
Voigt transform has the same sort of 'troublesome time dilation' .. only it
is a larger effect.
> To be a good scientist, he must examine the mathematics and the logics
> that led to the mathematical conclusion in the first place, and yet
> the self-styled physicists today embrace the Lorentz transform over
> the Voigt transform on the ground that the time dilation observed
> through the Lorentz transform is not predicted by the Voigt
> transform.
It predicts a larger time dilation that Lorentz transforms do, and so it is
refuted experimentally
> Thus, without any more clues in their very limited
> intellectual capability, they chose and hypnotized themselves
> generations after generations to ignore the mathematical self-
> contradiction in the Lorentz transform.
There are none.
> Two such contradictions are
> the twins� paradox and
Which Voigt Transforms also have.
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/f15c6901ead8635c?hl=en#
> There have been numerous claims to have resolved the twins� paradox.
It is easily resolved. It isn't a paradox. Its simply an unintuitive
result.
> Yet, each one contradicts with all the others.
No .. they all agree. And all are valid. Just different approaches to the
same problem, with the same solution. And further, experimental evidence
supports it.
> Instead of raising
> concerns, the self-styled physicists absurdly concluded that among
> these so-called resolutions, there must be one valid one to address
> the twins� paradox. Is expecting the self-styled physicists to have
> more integrity than that too much to ask?
Are you speaking of yourself?
M.M.M.
> > On Aug 15, 8:43 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...@yahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> > travels at .99c or
> > > 297000km/sec. The earth is also moving, at least at
> > 30km/sec.
> > > According to the Galilean addition of speeds
> > v3=v1+v2 the combined
> > (case 1) but
> > > according to the formula v3=(v1+v2)/(1+(v1*v2)
> > which AE derived from
> > > the 1851 experiments of Fizeau, the combined speed
> > > earth is 297000.6km/sec (case 2). If we follow the
> > > from a height of 20km above the earth, the impact
> > > earth occurs in case 1 after 0.000067333266 seconds
> > (time 1) and in
> > > case 2 in 0.0000673399313 seconds (time 2) but if
> > the time dilation
> > > formula T'=T/sqrt(1-vv/cc) of Lorentz is applied to
> > time 1 and 2, the
> > > times become 0.000479705428691 seconds (time 3) and
> > 0.000477407619720
> > > seconds (time 4) respectively. There are now four
> > different times to
> > > choose from none of which can ever be verified by
> > any experiment with
> > > any tools at our disposal now or in the future.
> > What can be said with
> > > certainty however is that three of the times are
> > incorrect. Therefore,
> > > if Galileo is correct, Lorentz and AE are wrong. If
> > AE’s addition of
> > > speeds formula is correct, then Galileo’s addition
> > of speeds formula
> > > and Lorentz’s time dilation formula are wrong.
>
> Lorentz Transformation, with transformation laws: E_x' = E_x, E_y' = \gamma (E_y - v B_z) ... Einstein's errant theories. In one fell swoop, Musatov has ...
> ..improved Einstein.
>
> So, I will ask you Is relativity I L L O G I C A L?
>
> I don't know. But you can make up your own mind I guess:
>
> This means the twins=EF= =FB=DB > > paradox.
>
> twin paradox, is solved only by cherry picking which twin undergoes. time dilation and cherry picking which twin is exempt from time ... Martin Michael Musatov ...(as above)
Still though I must admit, at conceptual face value I can't see why
they both may not do you?
Musatov
Inertial
news:89564a2b-1571-4069...@f37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
There's no cherry picking involved.
Koobee Wublee
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > What you referred to as AE’s velocity transform was already worked out
> > by Voigt in 1887. That would be 6 years after Michelson’s solo
> > experiment; the same years as Michelson’s verification of his earlier
> > experiment with Morley’s help; 18 years before Einstein the nitwit,
> > the plagiarist, and the liar published his plagiarized works. <shrug>
>
> > The velocity transform is indeed the same under either the Voigt
> > transform or the Lorentz transform. Both transforms do predict the
> > null results of the MMX. However, the Voigt transform only satisfies
> > the principle of relativity at low speed, and the Lorentz transform
> > manifests this troublesome time dilation thing as you have mentioned.
>
> Voigt transform has the same sort of 'troublesome time dilation' .. only it
> is a larger effect.
The Voigt transform does not exhibit any time dilation. It is all in
the very simple mathematics. All it takes is junior high school
algebra. <shrug>
> > To be a good scientist, he must examine the mathematics and the logics
> > that led to the mathematical conclusion in the first place, and yet
> > the self-styled physicists today embrace the Lorentz transform over
> > the Voigt transform on the ground that the time dilation observed
> > through the Lorentz transform is not predicted by the Voigt
> > transform.
>
> It predicts a larger time dilation that Lorentz transforms do, and so it is
> refuted experimentally
No, it does no such nonsensical claim. I guess junior high school
algebra understanding is beyond you. <shrug>
> > Thus, without any more clues in their very limited
> > intellectual capability, they chose and hypnotized themselves
> > generations after generations to ignore the mathematical self-
> > contradiction in the Lorentz transform.
>
> There are none.
There are actually many. The twins’ paradox is the oldest. Your
truly just added another one.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/f15c6901ead8635c?hl=en#
> > Two such contradictions are
> > the twins’ paradox and
>
> Which Voigt Transforms also have.
The Voigt transform exhibits no twins’ paradox because the Voigt
transform breaks the so-called symmetry which is nothing other than
the principle of relativity as described by Galileo more than 400
years ago. <shrug>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
> > There have been numerous claims to have resolved the twins’ paradox.
>
> It is easily resolved. It isn't a paradox. Its simply an unintuitive
> result.
Handwaving is not physics. <shrug>
> > Yet, each one contradicts with all the others.
>
> No .. they all agree. And all are valid. Just different approaches to the
> same problem, with the same solution. And further, experimental evidence
> supports it.
In your Sunday worship. <shrug>
> > Instead of raising
> > concerns, the self-styled physicists absurdly concluded that among
> > these so-called resolutions, there must be one valid one to address
> > the twins’ paradox. Is expecting the self-styled physicists to have
> > more integrity than that too much to ask?
>
> Are you speaking of yourself?
No. Since you are very challenged in mental reasoning, it is better
for me to give you a hint or two.
Hint: Try self-styled physicists aka Einstein Dingleberries.
If that hint does not help, please check yourself in the nearest
garden and identify yourself as a vegetable. Then, you will be
properly taken care of. This is for your own good. <shrug>
Inertial
> On Aug 17, 11:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> > by Voigt in 1887. That would be 6 years after Michelson�s solo
>> > experiment; the same years as Michelson�s verification of his earlier
>> > experiment with Morley�s help; 18 years before Einstein the nitwit,
>> > the plagiarist, and the liar published his plagiarized works. <shrug>
>>
>> > The velocity transform is indeed the same under either the Voigt
>> > transform or the Lorentz transform. Both transforms do predict the
>> > null results of the MMX. However, the Voigt transform only satisfies
>> > the principle of relativity at low speed, and the Lorentz transform
>> > manifests this troublesome time dilation thing as you have mentioned.
>>
>> Voigt transform has the same sort of 'troublesome time dilation' .. only
>> it
>> is a larger effect.
>
> The Voigt transform does not exhibit any time dilation.
Yes .. it does.
> It is all in
> the very simple mathematics.
Yeup .. just like the Lorentz Transform .. just a factor of gamma out, so
its not its own inverse. Once you fix that up that problem, you get the
Lorentz transforms.
> All it takes is junior high school
> algebra. <shrug>
Yeup. Do you have problems with that?
>> > To be a good scientist, he must examine the mathematics and the logics
>> > that led to the mathematical conclusion in the first place, and yet
>> > the self-styled physicists today embrace the Lorentz transform over
>> > the Voigt transform on the ground that the time dilation observed
>> > through the Lorentz transform is not predicted by the Voigt
>> > transform.
>>
>> It predicts a larger time dilation that Lorentz transforms do, and so it
>> is
>> refuted experimentally
>
> No, it does no such nonsensical claim.
It doesn't 'claim' anything .. its a transform. As it is clear that the
time value is different, and dependant on position , you get time dilation
effects when you apply it.
> I guess junior high school
> algebra understanding is beyond you.
Not at all. Are you sure you're looking at the same Voigt transforms that I
am?
>> > Thus, without any more clues in their very limited
>> > intellectual capability, they chose and hypnotized themselves
>> > generations after generations to ignore the mathematical self-
>> > contradiction in the Lorentz transform.
>>
>> There are none.
>
> There are actually many. The twins� paradox is the oldest.
There are many non-paradoxes that are not self-contradictory. The twins
'paradox' is one of those non-paradoxes that are not self-contradictory.
> Your
> truly just added another one.
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/f15c6901ead8635c?hl=en#
I suspect that you've just added another non-paradox to the list.
>> > Two such contradictions are
>> > the twins� paradox and
>>
>> Which Voigt Transforms also have.
>
> The Voigt transform exhibits no twins� paradox because the Voigt
> transform breaks the so-called symmetry
Its lack of symmetry (its not its own inverse) makes it a poor choice for a
transform, and experimental evidence shows it is not correct. it was only
out by an arbitrary gamma factor though.
Unless I am looking at a different Voigt transform to you.
> which is nothing other than
> the principle of relativity as described by Galileo more than 400
> years ago. <shrug>
Are you looking at the same transforms as me?
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
>> > There have been numerous claims to have resolved the twins� paradox.
>>
>> It is easily resolved. It isn't a paradox. Its simply an unintuitive
>> result.
>
> Handwaving is not physics. <shrug>
I was not waving hands. It has been thoroughly explained .. I don't need to
reproduce the explanations here as you are obviously familiar with them,
just confused by them.
>> > Yet, each one contradicts with all the others.
>>
>> No .. they all agree. And all are valid. Just different approaches to
>> the
>> same problem, with the same solution. And further, experimental evidence
>> supports it.
>
> In your Sunday worship. <shrug>
I don't worship anything or anyone.
Apparently you just don't understand the maths and physics involved. That's
your problem not mine. Perhaps more study would help you?
>> > Instead of raising
>> > concerns, the self-styled physicists absurdly concluded that among
>> > these so-called resolutions, there must be one valid one to address
>> > the twins� paradox. Is expecting the self-styled physicists to have
>> > more integrity than that too much to ask?
>>
>> Are you speaking of yourself?
>
> No. Since you are very challenged in mental reasoning,
Not at all.
[snip more nonsense]
eric gisse
Composition of velocities is perfectly explained within SO(3,1).
You've spend 50 years on this, and you still don't understand. You will
never understand, so why don't you go buy one of those nice 5,000 piece
puzzles and spend a decade on that?
Paul B. Andersen
> On Aug 17, 11:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>> by Voigt in 1887. That would be 6 years after Michelson�s solo
>>> experiment; the same years as Michelson�s verification of his earlier
>>> experiment with Morley�s help; 18 years before Einstein the nitwit,
>>> the plagiarist, and the liar published his plagiarized works. <shrug>
>>> The velocity transform is indeed the same under either the Voigt
>>> transform or the Lorentz transform. Both transforms do predict the
>>> null results of the MMX. However, the Voigt transform only satisfies
>>> the principle of relativity at low speed, and the Lorentz transform
>>> manifests this troublesome time dilation thing as you have mentioned.
>> Voigt transform has the same sort of 'troublesome time dilation' .. only it
>> is a larger effect.
>
> The Voigt transform does not exhibit any time dilation. It is all in
> the very simple mathematics. All it takes is junior high school
> algebra. <shrug>
x' = x - vt
y' = y sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
z' = z sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
t' = t - vx/c^2
Since it's so simple mathematics, why don't we see?
Let a clock move uniformly from the event E_0 (t,x,y,z) = (0,0,0,0)
to the event E_1 = (t_1,vt_1,0,0).
Transformed to the clock's rest frame using the Voigt transform,
the coordinates of these events will be:
E_0 (t',x',y',z') = (0,0,0,0)
E_1: (t_1(1-v^2/c^2),0,0,0)
The moving clock is running slow - more so than predicted by SR.
Not time dilation?
--
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fa16d047-bb91-46ea...@r27g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
> Not at all.
>
> [snip more nonsense]
>
Hey!
You snipped the only kind of arguments Koobee knows!
<<
Hint: Try self-styled physicists aka Einstein Dingleberries.
If that hint does not help, please check yourself in the nearest
garden and identify yourself as a vegetable. Then, you will be
properly taken care of. This is for your own good. <shrug>
>>
Why did you do that?
Are you not able to meet Koobee's lethal arguments? :-)
--
Paul
Inertial
news:4A8A819A...@somewhere.no...
I was busy finding the nearest garden .. there's a nice one not far from
here. Though I'm not sure what vegetable I should go as .. I guess I could
paint myself orange and go as a carrot :):)
Dirk Van de moortel
> On Aug 17, 6:29 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Peter Riedt <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> ef4ca80c-f809-4681-82c3-523a69199...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Fizeau, Einstein, Lorentz and the Muon
>>
>>> A muon descending to the surface of the earth travels at .99c or
>>> 297000km/sec. The earth is also moving, at least at 30km/sec.
>>> According to the Galilean addition of speeds v3=v1+v2 the combined
>>> speed of the muon and the earth is 297030km/sec (case 1) but
>>> according to the formula v3=(v1+v2)/(1+(v1*v2) which AE derived from
>>> the 1851 experiments of Fizeau, the combined speed of the muon and the
>>> earth is 297000.6km/sec (case 2). If we follow the descent of the muon
>>> from a height of 20km above the earth, the impact of the muon upon the
>>> earth occurs in case 1 after 0.000067333266 seconds (time 1) and in
>>> case 2 in 0.0000673399313 seconds (time 2) but if the time dilation
>>> formula T'=T/sqrt(1-vv/cc) of Lorentz is applied to time 1 and 2, the
>>> times become 0.000479705428691 seconds (time 3) and 0.000477407619720
>>> seconds (time 4) respectively. There are now four different times to
>>> choose from none of which can ever be verified by any experiment with
>>> any tools at our disposal now or in the future. What can be said with
>>> certainty however is that three of the times are incorrect. Therefore,
>>> speeds formula is correct, then Galileo�s addition of speeds formula
>>> and Lorentz�s time dilation formula are wrong. If the Lorentz time
>>> dilation formula is correct, Galileo�s and AE�s addition of speeds
>>> formulas are wrong. At the very least, the Lorentz transforms and
>>
>>> Peter Riedt
>>
>> 48 years down the drain:
>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/48years.html
>
> Dirk, if that is all you can come up with I must be right.
Isn't it 49 years now?
Dirk Vdm
Paul B. Andersen
>
> What does experiment indicate?
>
> "Modified Sagnac experiment for measuring travel-time
> difference between counter-propagating light beams
> in a uniformly moving fiber" --
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609222
>
> Sue...
In this case it indicates that the authors don't quite know what they have been doing.
The experiment isn't a modified Sagnac experiment, it is a modified Fizeau experiment.
I have calculated what SR predicts they should measure.
It is: delta_phi = 4.pi.L.v(n^2-1)/c.lambda
Note that the phase shift depend on the index of refraction n.
The paper doesn't state what n was, but the core in a typical
single mode fibre has n = 1.48, (n^2 - 1) = 1.19
So SR predicts:
delta_phi = 4.pi.L.v*1.19/c.lambda
The authors claim that their measurements are consistent
with the formula:
delta_phi = 4.pi.L.v/c.lambda
which is pretty close to what SR predicts.
The authors claim:
<<
The travel-time difference delta_t = 2vL/c^2 in our
experiment is independent of the refractive index n, as
in the Sagnac type experiment.
>>
It is true that the travel time is independent of n in
the Sagnac experiment:
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/fiber_optic_gyro.pdf
but the authors seem to have used but one type of fibre,
so I suspect the above claim is a pure guess.
A wrong one.
The experiment was a modified Fizeau, not a modified Sagnac.
The result depend on n, but since (n^2-1) is quite close
to one, the authors have wrongly believed that it doesn't depend
on n.
--
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
:-)
Like always, Koobee Wublee is wrong, which is blatantly obvious.
He can't fail to realize this, but admitting an error is no option
to him, so what else can he do than ad hominems?
--
Paul
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@utopia.no> wrote in message
news:4A8B12D5...@utopia.no...
Bwhahahahahahaha!
You did get one thing right, Tusseladd, the authors don't quite know what
they have been doing.
Neither do you.
Dirk Van de moortel
SHEim.190439$_t1....@newsfe09.ams2
Someone shat a bedfull again.
Dirk Vdm
Jenny
Well, since you're so smart...
Can you answer this for me?
How fast must a trillion bombs riiiight next to your light cone move
in order to stay forever out of your light cone so you could never,
ever know about them?
Jenny
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > The Voigt transform does not exhibit any time dilation. It is all in
> > the very simple mathematics. All it takes is junior high school
> > algebra. <shrug>
>
> x' = x - vt
> y' = y sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> z' = z sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> t' = t - vx/c^2
>
> Since it's so simple mathematics, why don't we see?
>
> Let a clock move uniformly from the event E_0 (t,x,y,z) = (0,0,0,0)
> to the event E_1 = (t_1,vt_1,0,0).
> Transformed to the clock's rest frame using the Voigt transform,
> the coordinates of these events will be:
> E_0 (t',x',y',z') = (0,0,0,0)
> E_1: (t_1(1-v^2/c^2),0,0,0)
>
> The moving clock is running slow - more so than predicted by SR.
> Not time dilation?
Ahahaha...
That is what you get for chasing after too many chickens.
Ahahaha...
Since the Voigt transform does not satisfy the principle of
relativity, we cannot inter-change primed and non-primed like the
Lorentz transform. Going back to the equations you laid out for the
Voigt transform, we have
** dt' = dt – B dx / c
** dx' = dx – B c dt
** dy' = dy sqrt(1 - B^2)
** dz' = dz sqrt(1 - B^2)
Where
** B = v / c
Notice that if the above is true, the following is not necessarily
true.
** dt = dt’ + B dx’ / c
** dx = dx’ + B c dt’
** dy = dy’ sqrt(1 - B^2)
** dz = dz’ sqrt(1 - B^2)
From the Voigt transform you have written down, simple algebra yields
the following.
** dt = dt’ (1 + B dx’ / c) / (1 – B^2)
Not the following as you have written,
** dt’ = dt (1 – B^2)
Properly derived, the dx’ term is still there. So, how do you
interpret all that?
The Voigt transform is actually very complex. It simply is beyond
many self-styled physicists to understand. <shrug>
Hint: Stop confusing the Dopper Effect with time dilation. Time
dilation translates to a slow-down in the body metabolism of a living
creature. The Doppler effect is not so.
Ahahaha...
You are getting more absurd. You should stop chasing after chickens
for a change.
Ahahaha...
Inertial
> On Aug 18, 3:17 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>> > The Voigt transform does not exhibit any time dilation. It is all in
>> > the very simple mathematics. All it takes is junior high school
>> > algebra. <shrug>
>>
>> x' = x - vt
>> y' = y sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
>> z' = z sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
>> t' = t - vx/c^2
>>
>> Since it's so simple mathematics, why don't we see?
>>
>> Let a clock move uniformly from the event E_0 (t,x,y,z) = (0,0,0,0)
>> to the event E_1 = (t_1,vt_1,0,0).
>> Transformed to the clock's rest frame using the Voigt transform,
>> the coordinates of these events will be:
>> E_0 (t',x',y',z') = (0,0,0,0)
>> E_1: (t_1(1-v^2/c^2),0,0,0)
>>
>> The moving clock is running slow - more so than predicted by SR.
>> Not time dilation?
>
> Ahahaha...
>
> That is what you get for chasing after too many chickens.
>
> Ahahaha...
>
> Since the Voigt transform does not satisfy the principle of
> relativity,
We know that change point of reference to another and back again does not
result in the world change size. Bu that is what Voigt gives. Which is why
it is useless as a general transform (which is not what it was meant to be).
Once you correct that problem, you end up with Lorentz transforms.
Maxwell
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c0b3144f-9d49-413f...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 15, 8:43 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> A muon descending to the surface of the earth travels at .99c or
> >> 297000km/sec. The earth is also moving, at least at 30km/sec.
> >> According to the Galilean addition of speeds v3=v1+v2 the combined
> >> speed of the muon and the earth is 297030km/sec (case 1) but
> >> according to the formula v3=(v1+v2)/(1+(v1*v2) which AE derived from
> >> the 1851 experiments of Fizeau, the combined speed of the muon and the
> >> earth is 297000.6km/sec (case 2). If we follow the descent of the muon
> >> from a height of 20km above the earth, the impact of the muon upon the
> >> earth occurs in case 1 after 0.000067333266 seconds (time 1) and in
> >> case 2 in 0.0000673399313 seconds (time 2) but if the time dilation
> >> formula T'=T/sqrt(1-vv/cc) of Lorentz is applied to time 1 and 2, the
> >> times become 0.000479705428691 seconds (time 3) and 0.000477407619720
> >> seconds (time 4) respectively. There are now four different times to
> >> choose from none of which can ever be verified by any experiment with
> >> any tools at our disposal now or in the future. What can be said with
> >> certainty however is that three of the times are incorrect. Therefore,
> >> speeds formula is correct, then Galileo’s addition of speeds formula
> >> and Lorentz’s time dilation formula are wrong. If the Lorentz time
> >> dilation formula is correct, Galileo’s and AE’s addition of speeds
> >> formulas are wrong. At the very least, the Lorentz transforms and
>
> > What you referred to as AE’s velocity transform was already worked out
> > by Voigt in 1887. That would be 6 years after Michelson’s solo
> > experiment; the same years as Michelson’s verification of his earlier
> > experiment with Morley’s help; 18 years before Einstein the nitwit,
> > the plagiarist, and the liar published his plagiarized works. <shrug>
>
> > The velocity transform is indeed the same under either the Voigt
> > transform or the Lorentz transform. Both transforms do predict the
> > null results of the MMX. However, the Voigt transform only satisfies
> > the principle of relativity at low speed, and the Lorentz transform
> > manifests this troublesome time dilation thing as you have mentioned.
>
> Voigt transform has the same sort of 'troublesome time dilation' .. only it
> is a larger effect.
>
> > To be a good scientist, he must examine the mathematics and the logics
> > that led to the mathematical conclusion in the first place, and yet
> > the self-styled physicists today embrace the Lorentz transform over
> > the Voigt transform on the ground that the time dilation observed
> > through the Lorentz transform is not predicted by the Voigt
> > transform.
>
> It predicts a larger time dilation that Lorentz transforms do, and so it is
> refuted experimentally
>
> > Thus, without any more clues in their very limited
> > intellectual capability, they chose and hypnotized themselves
> > generations after generations to ignore the mathematical self-
> > contradiction in the Lorentz transform.
>
> There are none.
>
> > Two such contradictions are
>
> Which Voigt Transforms also have.
>
> > There have been numerous claims to have resolved the twins’ paradox.
>
> It is easily resolved. It isn't a paradox. Its simply an unintuitive
> result.
>
> > Yet, each one contradicts with all the others.
>
> No .. they all agree. And all are valid. Just different approaches to the
> same problem, with the same solution. And further, experimental evidence
> supports it.
>
> > Instead of raising
> > concerns, the self-styled physicists absurdly concluded that among
> > these so-called resolutions, there must be one valid one to address
> > more integrity than that too much to ask?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Lorentz transform (LT) is a longitudinal transform when one set of
(longitudinal) space axes (say x & x') are aligned along the fixed
velocity vector between the two reference frames. This impacts only
x' & t' in the LT. The Voigt transform (VT)is a transverse transform
(as Voigt was investigating transverse vibrations in an elastic medium
- shades of Maxwell's aether?). The VT only (symmetrically) changes
the two transverse spatial dimensions (y' & z') but leaves the set
{x', t'} unchanged. This means that there is no "bizarre" time or
velocity transforms in the longitudinal direction, nor is there any
infinite effects as the VT involves the inverse of the LT gamma
factor. This should have been the explanation of the anomalous "mass
increase" of high-speed electrons due to the reduction of the
transverse EM field intensities experienced by the electron but the VT
was totally ignored in the "rush to originality".
Incidentally, Lorentz was in correspondence with Voigt after the
publication of the VT, so it is very likely that the VT was the
inspiration for Lorentz's LT - but as usual, the ambitious Lorentz
failed to acknowledge his sources.
Peter Riedt
> Peter Riedt wrote:
> > On Aug 18, 7:35 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Peter Riedt wrote:
> >> > On Aug 17, 12:34 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> >> >> [snip]
>
> >> >> >At the very least, the Lorentz transforms and
> >> >> > AE?s speed addition formula contradict each other.
>
> >> >> > Peter Riedt
>
> >> >> SO(3,1)
>
> >> >> Now go away until you can find a self contradiction in group theory.
>
> >> > Eric, ignoring the facts is not a good argument nor is obfuscating
> >> > with 'group theory'. It is indicative that you have no answer to
> >> > explain this inconsistency in SR.
>
> >> You don't know what group theory is, so please don't argue.
>
> > Eric, the subject is the addition of speeds formula against the
> > Lorentz time dilation formula.
>
> > Peter Riedt
>
> Composition of velocities is perfectly explained within SO(3,1).
>
> You've spend 50 years on this, and you still don't understand. You will
> never understand, so why don't you go buy one of those nice 5,000 piece
>
> - Show quoted text -
Eric, please explain to the members of this NG how your 'group theory'
removes the inconsistency of the speed composition formula with the
Lorentz transforms?
Peter Riedt
eric gisse
[...]
> Eric, please explain to the members of this NG how your 'group theory'
> removes the inconsistency of the speed composition formula with the
> Lorentz transforms?
I like the little sarcastic finger quotes around 'group theory' like it is a
concept you've never heard about until now. Which is probably the case,
given your disdain for self education and learning in general.
You have spent twice the time I have been alive trying and failing to
understand this subject. I won't waste my time trying to teach you group
theory.
>
> Peter Riedt
Jenny
> You have spent twice the time I have been alive trying and failing to
> understand this subject. I won't waste my time trying to teach you group
> theory.
Talking about time, it's been a few days now and you haven't answered
this question.
How fast must a trillion bombs riiiight next to your light cone move
in order to stay forever out of your light cone so you could never,
ever know about them?
(remember you claimed that you would never, ever know about them)
Since you haven't been able to figure it out, I'll tell you the
answer.
It doesn't matter how fast they move. You'll see them when the light
that leaves them intersects your world line.
That would be riiiight away.
Never, ever is about as wrong as you could be.
If they were on the surface of your light cone, you could see them
"now".
(Unless you meant that the bombs were hidden).
If they were *inside* your light cone, you would probably have already
seen them.
Of course you now have the opporunity to claim that you meant riiiight
outside your light cone but millions of light years away.
I hope you finally understand.
Jenny
eric gisse
> On Aug 19, 6:30 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> You have spent twice the time I have been alive trying and failing to
>> understand this subject. I won't waste my time trying to teach you group
>> theory.
>
> Talking about time, it's been a few days now and you haven't answered
> this question.
>
> How fast must a trillion bombs riiiight next to your light cone move
> in order to stay forever out of your light cone so you could never,
> ever know about them?
In a Lorentzian universe with an appropriate head start and nonzero
acceleration, "not very fast".
In a FRW [expanding] universe, not at all if you are in the right spot.
[...]
> Of course you now have the opporunity to claim that you meant riiiight
> outside your light cone but millions of light years away.
Accelerate hard enough and light from an object on the moon will never
reach.
blackhead
> 297000km/sec. The earth is also moving, at least at 30km/sec.
> According to the Galilean addition of speeds v3=v1+v2 the combined
> speed of the muon and the earth is 297030km/sec (case 1) but
> according to the formula v3=(v1+v2)/(1+(v1*v2) which AE derived from
> the 1851 experiments of Fizeau, the combined speed of the muon and the
> earth is 297000.6km/sec (case 2). If we follow the descent of the muon
> from a height of 20km above the earth, the impact of the muon upon the
> earth occurs in case 1 after 0.000067333266 seconds (time 1) and in
> case 2 in 0.0000673399313 seconds (time 2) but if the time dilation
> formula T'=T/sqrt(1-vv/cc) of Lorentz is applied to time 1 and 2, the
> times become 0.000479705428691 seconds (time 3) and 0.000477407619720
> seconds (time 4) respectively. There are now four different times to
> choose from none of which can ever be verified by any experiment with
> any tools at our disposal now or in the future. What can be said with
> certainty however is that three of the times are incorrect. Therefore,
> if Galileo is correct, Lorentz and AE are wrong. If AE’s addition of
> speeds formula is correct, then Galileo’s addition of speeds formula
> and Lorentz’s time dilation formula are wrong. If the Lorentz time
> dilation formula is correct, Galileo’s and AE’s addition of speeds
> AE’s speed addition formula contradict each other.
>
> Peter Riedt
The SR addition of velocities you've quoted is when they're parallel
to one another.
You also seem to have ignored Lorentz contraction of distance.
Jenny
> Jenny wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 6:30 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How fast must a trillion bombs riiiight next to your light cone move
> > in order to stay forever out of your light cone so you could never,
> > ever know about them?
> In a Lorentzian universe with an appropriate head start and nonzero
> acceleration, "not very fast".
Finally some progress, at last I've managed to teach you something.
As I predicted, you've changed your claim, which was:
_____________
What is beyond your light cone plays no part in your existence. Ever.
That's
what it _means_. There could be a trillion cherry bombs riiiight
outside my
personal light cone and I'll never, ever know.
______________
Now it's:
_________________
"What is beyond your light cone plays no part in your existence. Ever -
*if it's far enough away and accelerating fast enough*. That's what it
_means_.There could be a trillion cherry bombs riiiight outside my
personal light cone and I won't know *if they're *all* far enough away
and accelerating fast enough*".
_________________
Of course, it's still wrong because that's not what a light cone
"_means_" but there are sign of progress.
If you could only acknowledge that you were wrong and being outside
your light cone does not prevent things from never, ever playing a
part in your existence, what a wonderful world this would be.
Do you know what it does mean to say that an object is outside your
light cone?
Do you finally understand?
Jenny
eric gisse
> On Aug 19, 7:44 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jenny wrote:
>> > On Aug 19, 6:30 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> > How fast must a trillion bombs riiiight next to your light cone move
>> > in order to stay forever out of your light cone so you could never,
>> > ever know about them?
>
>
>> In a Lorentzian universe with an appropriate head start and nonzero
>> acceleration, "not very fast".
>
> Finally some progress, at last I've managed to teach you something.
>
> As I predicted, you've changed your claim
[snip rest]
I gave you possible conditions that make the claim true, just as you
*specifically asked*.
Don't be pissed off because I was able to answer you without evasions,
insults, or arguments to authority.
You have your own little notion about what a light cone is. That's fine, but
I'm not obligated to conform to it. Especially when my notion comes from an
education in the subject.
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/causb.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
But since I'm clearly slipping in the disrespect department, I'll tell you
that I'm sick and fucking tired of repeating myself to you. Your little
crush and/or the burr up your ass is cute, but it is remarkably boring
because you don't even have the decency to be interesting.
Jenny
> Jenny wrote:
> You have your own little notion about what a light cone is. That's fine, but
> I'm not obligated to conform to it. Especially when my notion comes from an
> education in the subject.
> http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/causb.htmlhttp:
Note that it says "past light cone of a spacetime event E"
You are not an event, in Minkowski Space you are modelled as a series
of events known as a world line.
An event cannot be affected by an event that is outside it's past
light cone.
The event (bomb,now) is riiiight outside the past light cone of the
event (you, now).
It cannot affect (you, now)
If the bomb explodes at (bomb, now) it will affect the event (you,
0.0001seconds from now).
In other words, a bomb riiiight outside your past light cone will
affect you.
To say "a bomb riiiight outside your past light cone can never, ever
affect you" is complete and utter nonsense.
> But since I'm clearly slipping in the disrespect department, I'll tell you
> that I'm sick and fucking tired of repeating myself to you. Your little
> crush and/or the burr up your ass is cute, but it is remarkably boring
> because you don't even have the decency to be interesting.
You, on the other hand are fascinating.
If objects outside each others past light cones could never, ever
affect each other then nothing would ever, ever happen in the
Universe, from now until the end of time.
You couldn't do an experiment, or make an observation or even think.
You don't even see how stupid your claim was.
Read the website you linked to and learn the difference between an
event and a world line.
It might help you to lose some of your arrogance.
I made a mistake in a post yesterday and acknowledged it as soon as it
was pointed out to me.
There's nothing wrong with making mistakes, but to blindly repeat them
is just plain stupid.
Jenny
Peter Riedt
> "Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Fizeau, Einstein, Lorentz and the Muon
>
> > A muon descending to the surface of the earth travels at .99c or
> > 297000km/sec. The earth is also moving, at least at 30km/sec.
> > According to the Galilean addition of speeds v3=v1+v2 the combined
> > speed of the muon and the earth is 297030km/sec (case 1) but
> > according to the formula v3=(v1+v2)/(1+(v1*v2) which AE derived from
> > the 1851 experiments of Fizeau, the combined speed of the muon and the
> > earth is 297000.6km/sec (case 2). If we follow the descent of the muon
> > from a height of 20km above the earth, the impact of the muon upon the
> > earth occurs in case 1 after 0.000067333266 seconds (time 1) and in
> > case 2 in 0.0000673399313 seconds (time 2) but if the time dilation
> > formula T'=T/sqrt(1-vv/cc) of Lorentz is applied to time 1 and 2, the
> > times become 0.000479705428691 seconds (time 3) and 0.000477407619720
> > seconds (time 4) respectively. There are now four different times to
> > choose from none of which can ever be verified by any experiment with
> > any tools at our disposal now or in the future. What can be said with
> > certainty however is that three of the times are incorrect. Therefore,
> > if Galileo is correct, Lorentz and AE are wrong. If AE’s addition of
> > speeds formula is correct, then Galileo’s addition of speeds formula
> > and Lorentz’s time dilation formula are wrong. If the Lorentz time
> > dilation formula is correct, Galileo’s and AE’s addition of speeds
> > formulas are wrong. At the very least, the Lorentz transforms and
> > AE’s speed addition formula contradict each other.
>
> inherent problem. LT and speed composition are derived form each other, so
> your assertion is wrong. Try again.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Whoever, there is a possibility that your argument is not as stupid as
it looks on the surface. To give you the benefit of the doubt, you
should attempt to explain how the two formulas were derived from each
other.
Peter Riedt
eric gisse
[...]
> Read the website you linked to and learn the difference between an
> event and a world line.
Jesus tittyfucking christ this argument has reached the much anticipated
stage of "tedious and stupid".
Since you are going to be pointlessly pedantic, I'll say it one last goddamn
time.
AN EVENT OUTSIDE AN OBSERVERS LIGHT CONE CAN NEVER BE SEEN BY THAT OBSERVER
BECAUSE IN ORDER TO BE OUTSIDE THE LIGHT CONE THE EVENT NEEDS TO BE
SPACELIKE IN NATURE. This is by definition, and should not even need to be
expressed because anyone who seeks to argue should know this already.
I'm not claiming that an event outside of your light cone at any particular
point in time will always stay that way. I made a more specific claim.
And this is the last I'll say on the subject.
[...]
Dirk Van de moortel
"Peter Riedt" <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> schreef in bericht
news:36ed418a-a386-4539...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 16, 11:54 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > Your confusion is only an indication of your confusion .. not of any
> > inherent problem. LT and speed composition are derived form each other,
> > so
> > your assertion is wrong. Try again.
>
> Whoever, there is a possibility that your argument is not as stupid as
> it looks on the surface. To give you the benefit of the doubt, you
> should attempt to explain how the two formulas were derived from each
> other.
>
> Peter Riedt
A juicy turd to step in.
Dirk Vdm
Jenny
> Jenny wrote:
> > Read the website you linked to and learn the difference between an
> > event and a world line.
> Jesus tittyfucking christ this argument has reached the much anticipated
> stage of "tedious and stupid".
You are a tedious person. But I'm patient.
And you are certainly stupid. I'm having fun waiting for the paint to
dry.
> Since you are going to be pointlessly pedantic, I'll say it one last goddamn
> time.
> AN EVENT OUTSIDE AN OBSERVERS LIGHT CONE CAN NEVER BE SEEN BY THAT OBSERVER
Still wrong!
An event outside an observer's light cone will be seen by that
observer at the event where light from that event crosses the
observer's world line.
An observer is *not* an event.
An event can't move, it can't accelerate away.
> I'm not claiming that an event outside of your light cone at any particular
> point in time will always stay that way. I made a more specific claim.
"Events" don't move. They always stay put.
Your claim was:
"There could be a trillion cherry bombs riiiight outside my personal
light cone and I'll never, ever know".
Yes your claim was very specific also very wrong.
And *that's* why I corrected you.
If it were true, then nothing could ever, ever happen in the Universe.
Actually *think* about that. Draw diagrams if you can't visualize it
in your head.
Try thinking of a boat moving up a river - look at the waves.
Try *anything* to get that brain of yours functioning.
When someone says that you're wrong - *think* about it carefully
before you jump back in. And *read* over what &*you* wrote before you
get in too deep.
But I've told you all of this before, many times - you just won't
learn.
> And this is the last I'll say on the subject.
So your last "say" will have been a childish lie.
It should have been mature acknowlegement of error.
A piece of advice:
Acting like a grown up is a better tactic in life than writing
"Applied Physics" in preference to "Physics".
Jenny
Paul B. Andersen
Since 'the speed composition formula' is a direct result of
the Lorentz transform, how can there be an inconsistency?
'The speed composition formula' IS the Lorentz transform applied on speed.
A better name would be 'the speed transform formula'.
Given two frames of reference K and K', where K' is moving with the speed v
along the positive x-axis of K. Origins aligned at t = t' = 0, axes parallel.
Let an object move along the x-axis of K with the speed u, so that it is
at the events E_0 : x_0 = 0, t_0 = 0 and E_1 : x_1 = ut_1, t_1
The coordinates transformed to K':
E_0: x'_0 = 0, t'_0 = 0
E_1: x'_1 = gamma(x_1 - vt_1) = gamma.t_1(u-v)
t'_1 = gamma(t_1 - vx_1/c^2) = gamma.t_1(1 - uv/c^2)
The speed of the object in K':
w = (x'_1 - x'_0)/(t'_1 - t'_0) = (u-v)/(1 - uv/c^2)
--
Paul
Sue...
wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Aug 17, 11:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>> by Voigt in 1887. That would be 6 years after Michelson’s solo
> >>> experiment; the same years as Michelson’s verification of his earlier
> >>> experiment with Morley’s help; 18 years before Einstein the nitwit,
> >>> the plagiarist, and the liar published his plagiarized works. <shrug>
> >>> The velocity transform is indeed the same under either the Voigt
> >>> transform or the Lorentz transform. Both transforms do predict the
> >>> null results of the MMX. However, the Voigt transform only satisfies
> >>> the principle of relativity at low speed, and the Lorentz transform
> >>> manifests this troublesome time dilation thing as you have mentioned.
> >> Voigt transform has the same sort of 'troublesome time dilation' .. only it
> >> is a larger effect.
>
> > The Voigt transform does not exhibit any time dilation. It is all in
> > the very simple mathematics. All it takes is junior high school
> > algebra. <shrug>
>
> x' = x - vt
> y' = y sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> z' = z sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> t' = t - vx/c^2
>
> Since it's so simple mathematics, why don't we see?
>
> Let a clock move uniformly from the event E_0 (t,x,y,z) = (0,0,0,0)
> to the event E_1 = (t_1,vt_1,0,0).
> Transformed to the clock's rest frame using the Voigt transform,
> the coordinates of these events will be:
> E_0 (t',x',y',z') = (0,0,0,0)
> E_1: (t_1(1-v^2/c^2),0,0,0)
>
> The moving clock is running slow - more so than predicted by SR.
> Not time dilation?
>
What does experiment indicate?
"Modified Sagnac experiment for measuring travel-time
difference between counter-propagating light beams
in a uniformly moving fiber" --
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609222
Sue...
> --
> Paul
>
Jonah Thomas
> Since 'the speed composition formula' is a direct result of
> the Lorentz transform, how can there be an inconsistency?
>
> 'The speed composition formula' IS the Lorentz transform applied on
> speed.
I'm not ready to look at the details of what you're doing.
But can you find a better name for it? The way you're doing it
practically begs for somebody to do:
This is your lorentz transform. [picture]
This is your lorentz transform on speed. [weird picture]
Sue...
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@utopia.no> wrote:
>
> > Since 'the speed composition formula' is a direct result of
> > the Lorentz transform, how can there be an inconsistency?
>
> > 'The speed composition formula' IS the Lorentz transform applied on
> > speed.
>
> I'm not ready to look at the details of what you're doing.
>
> But can you find a better name for it?
Recall that the ~conflict~ you inquired about in another
thread arose at a time when Newton's inertially moving
corpuscular light was a popular model, so that you don't
think I am cheating with some literary license in
brackets below.
<< the famous Lorentz transformation [] ensures
that the velocity of
--> [particle] light <--
is invariant between different inertial frames,
and also reduces to the more familiar Galilean transform
in the limit v << c. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node109.html
Particle light is still a useful calculating tool
but the conflict with PoR was never real and its modern
relation to the inertial field is defined by
assigning it a mass of zero.
The modern resolution of the light postulate
is expressed in the same terms as a modern
measurement of light's speed.
<< where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which
can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments
which involve measuring the force of attraction between
two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying
wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments
must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all
inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the
same in all inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
No Lorentz transformation is required to resolve
a conflict that does not exist.
Sue...
gratis-_+_8_Sum_
> NP - sci.math | Google Groups
> ... is the deans list of 100 , from 400 and 200 pairs of incompatible
> students. The final list of red and green does not HAVE A SINGLE
> INCOMPATIBLE MATCH as ...
> groups.google.ms/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/...On Aug 18,7:28 am,Dodge<hope9...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > PROFMUSATOV
> > Here attached is the deans list of 100 , from 400 and 200 pairs of incompatible students. The final list of red and green does not HAVE A SINGLE INCOMPATIBLE MATCH as required , we solved it by using inverse zero, differential of 1=3
>
> > Theo Denotter and Vinoo Cameron Aug 18th 2009
>
> > DO NOT DARE POST NONSENSE HERE , MAY THE GODS CURSE YOU WITH POX IF YOU DO.
>
> .....................I have had pox..................................
> NP - sci.math | Google Groups
> ... is the deans list of 100 , from 400 and 200 pairs of incompatible
> students. The final list of red and green does not HAVE A SINGLE
> INCOMPATIBLE MATCH as ...
> groups.google.ms/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/...
On Aug 19, 12:35 pm, "M.M.M." <marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 18, 7:28 am,Dodge<hope9...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > PROFMUSATOV
> > Here attached is the deans list of 100 , from 400 and 200 pairs of incompatible students. The final list of red and green does not HAVE A SINGLE INCOMPATIBLE MATCH as required , we solved it by using inverse zero, differential of 1=3
>
> > Theo Denotter and Vinoo Cameron Aug 18th 2009
>
> > DO NOT DARE POST NONSENSE HERE , MAY THE GODS CURSE YOU WITH POX IF YOU DO.
>
> Thank you fine student, though I am not your teacher, and you are a
> 'thief'!
>
> PROFMUSATOVHere attached is the deans list
> of 100 , from 400 and 200 pairs of incompatible students. The final
> list of red
> and green does not HAVE A SINGLE INCOMPATIBLE MATCH as required , we
> solved it
> by using inverse zero, differential of 1=3 Theo Denotter and Vinoo
> Cameron ...
>
> Allow me to FIX your work!
>
> MUSATOV deans list of 100 , from 400 and 200 pairs of incompatible
> students. 1=3t of red and green does not HAVE A SINGLE INCOMPATIBLE
> MATCH as required , we solved it by using inverse zero, differential
> of 1=3 MartinMusatovand Theo Denotter and Vinoo Cameron ...
Let the entire set consist of incompatible pairs -- this is the
resolution to
the problem -- the ones that (art) have no preference (in) the matter
will (not)
mind not if (2me) the case may (+) be:
Line them up:
Assume
01 incompatible 02
Actual
02 compatible = 3A (with =) =come
In plain language we write
The 'incompatible' list (really the real incompatibles and all the
others who don't mind) if we say they are 'incompatible' but they are
really not) list.
By beginning with a set of 50 let's say (the dean has added more
students and we make it even 'harder' by beginning with a pool of 643
student) these are 1/2 of the final set of accepted students of the
100 (chosen randomly) we will end with.
We call this set 'P'
Set #1:
8, 24, 25, 29, 36, 56, 67, 114, 115, 151, 156, 164, 182, 202, 213,
214, 221, 227, 241, 245, 259, 266, 272, 273, 274, 277, 281, 284, 290,
295, 298, 322, 367, 375, 386, 391, 410, 412, 461, 466, 473, 487, 490,
505, 539, 541, 552, 553, 567, 569
We then Let NP be the set
1 of 1 # from Set of 50 Unique Numbers Per Set
Range: From 1 to 643 -- Sorted from Least to Greatest
Set # (function): = P = P == NP
... selection of G a,nd takes t,he form i(t) = ( A - GC )z(t) ... It
is then convenient to partit.ion t.he state vector as x = Suppose we
decide ...
We run this theory (compute it) and suppose it has produced the list:
8P, 24P, 25P, 29P, 36P, 56P, 67P, 114P, 115P, 151P, 156P, 164P, 182P,
202P, 213P, 214P, 221P, 227P, 241P, 245P, 259P, 266P, 272P, 273P,
274P, 277P, 281P, 284P, 290P, 295P, 298P, 322P, 367P, 375P, 386P,
391P, 410P, 412P, 461P, 466P, 473P, 487P, 490P, 505P, 539P, 541P,
552P, 553P, 567P, 569P
Now we have assigned 'P' as the equal compatible pairs of the other
50
No no number is compatible not to itself and P may be checked as it is
constructed in the constructed set as it has been produced in
polynomial time.
Simply put we may see it this way: Energy equals mass times the
speed of light squared and squared light speeds the # of times mass
equals energy.
Proportionate/disproportion log n/e is easy to check, easy to produce,
and easy to set definitions.
If P = NP well then over this over then well NP = P If
(anything) in (truth) follows it
Man I want a cheeseburger = cheeseburger (a) want (i) Man
(but does it mean the cheeseburger is alive?)
No but it might help serve burgers faster and more efficiently.
The jet fuel cost are sky rocketing out of control at present (the
solution may be to) present at control (of) out - rocketing sky are
cost fuel jet (T)he (UNKNOWN FACTOR FOUND BY A MACHINE)
Sometimes the answer computed may simply be a metaphor for the
solution or some insight or perspective (computed as in the jet fuel
cost case by my experimental search technology the result contained
this statement): BY
http://buildasearch.com/meami?e=present+at+control+%28of%29+out+-+rocketing+sky+are+cost+fuel+jet+%28T%29he&submit=search
... brush: thieves pulling signals out of the sky, then charging John
Q. Public. ... A 18 Ru n n i ng t he Show 19 In the lag between
accepting the new job and ...
MAN WHAT MIGHT SOME BRILLIANT ANALYSTS MAKE OUT OF THAT? IT IS SO
EXCITING LIKE TRULY THE ORACLE WE JOKE ABOUT SOMETIMES IT IS RIGHT
SOMETIMES IT IS SILLY WHEN IT IS RIGHT IT SEEMS LIKE GOD TO SOME
PEOPLE BECAUSE NO ONE WROTE IT BUT WHAT IT SAYS ALLOWS US INSIGHT OR
ANSWER
OR ANALYSIS OF THE TELECOMS BY MY P VERSUS NP PAGE ON WWW.SCRIBD.COM
AND YOU GET THIS TYPE OF CONTENT DISCOVERY
From my solution at: <a title="View A Solution to P Equals NP on
Scribd" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/12694681/A-Solution-to-P-
Equals-NP" style="margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family:
Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-
adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display:
block; text-decoration: underline;">A Solution to P Equals NP</a>
<object codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/
flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0" id="doc_575465275371085"
name="doc_575465275371085" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-
ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" align="middle" height="500" width="100%"
> <param name="movie" value="http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?
document_id=12694681&access_key=key-
edi9lzczimv1moc9xmv&page=1&version=1&viewMode="> <param
name="quality" value="high"> <param name="play" value="true">
<param name="loop" value="true"> <param name="scale"
value="showall"> <param name="wmode" value="opaque"> <param
name="devicefont" value="false"> <param name="bgcolor"
value="#ffffff"> <param name="menu" value="true"> <param
name="allowFullScreen" value="true"> <param name="allowScriptAccess"
value="always"> <param name="salign" value=""> <embed
src="http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?
document_id=12694681&access_key=key-
edi9lzczimv1moc9xmv&page=1&version=1&viewMode=" quality="high"
pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" play="true"
loop="true" scale="showall" wmode="opaque" devicefont="false"
bgcolor="#ffffff" name="doc_575465275371085_object" menu="true"
allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" salign=""
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" align="middle" height="500"
width="100%"></embed> </object>
THIS CRAZY ASS BOOK PRODUCED MY MACHINE/PHYSICS/MY PAPER/YOUR INTERNET/
THE FOUNDERS OF SCRIBD/THE GREEDY SONS OF BITCHES OVER AT WILEY:
<a title="View Ma Lone on Scribd" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/
18288480/Ma-Lone" style="margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family:
Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-
adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display:
block; text-decoration: underline;">Ma Lone</a> <object
codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/
swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0" id="doc_507580535493576"
name="doc_507580535493576" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-
ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" align="middle" height="500" width="100%"
> <param name="movie" value="http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?
document_id=18288480&access_key=key-13nkrp85cxudy0hr0zcm&page=1&version=1&viewMode=">
<param name="quality" value="high"> <param name="play"
value="true"> <param name="loop" value="true"> <param name="scale"
value="showall"> <param name="wmode" value="opaque"> <param
name="devicefont" value="false"> <param name="bgcolor"
value="#ffffff"> <param name="menu" value="true"> <param
name="allowFullScreen" value="true"> <param name="allowScriptAccess"
value="always"> <param name="salign" value=""> <embed
src="http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?
document_id=18288480&access_key=key-13nkrp85cxudy0hr0zcm&page=1&version=1&viewMode="
quality="high" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/
getflashplayer" play="true" loop="true" scale="showall" wmode="opaque"
devicefont="false" bgcolor="#ffffff" name="doc_507580535493576_object"
menu="true" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"
salign="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" align="middle"
height="500" width="100%"></embed> </object>
q E I don'
t even fucking care anymore
b e ca us e
i n a m a t t e r
of t i m e the
whole fu
ck ing
Net will
by
testing these
words will
be mine
Martin Michael Musatov
On Aug 20, 3:34 am, "gratis-_+_8_Sum_" <scribio_v...@mail.org> wrote:
1 = A
> 12 = B
123 = C
> 1234 = D
12345 = E
> 123456 = F
1234567 = G
> 12345678 = H
123456789 = I
> 12345678910 = J
1234567891011 = K
> 123456789101112 = L
12345678910111213 = M
> 1234567891011121314 = N
123456789101112131415 = O
> 12345678910111213141516 =P
1234567891011121314151617 = Q
> 123456789101112131415161718 = R
12345678910111213141516171819 = S
> 1234567891011121314151617181920 = T
123456789101112131415161718192021 = U
> 12345678910111213141516171819202122 = V
1234567891011121314151617181920212223 = W
> 123456789101112131415161718192021222324 = X
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425 =
Y
> 1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526
= Z
> 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627 = 0A
> 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 = 0B
> 1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829 = 0C
> 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930 = 0D
> 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 = 0E
> 1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132 =0F
> 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233 = 0G
> 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334 =
0H
> 1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435 =
0I
> 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536 =
0J
> 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323337 =
0K
> 1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333738 =
0L
> 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233373839 =
0M
> 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323337383940 =
0N
> 1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333738394041
> 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233373839404142
= 0P
> ABCDEFGHIJKLM ONP= Q.E.D.
++Musatov
Peter Riedt
wrote:
>
> Since 'the speed composition formula' is a direct result of
> the Lorentz transform, how can there be an inconsistency?
>
Paul, in my previous post 'More Speed Confusion' you argued that the
speed composition formula was derived by AE from the experiments of
Fizeau with the speed of light in water. Was Fizeau also the father of
the Lorentz Transforms? Or was it Voigt?
Peter Riedt
Paul B. Andersen
> On Aug 21, 3:02 am, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@utopia.no>
> wrote:
>> Since 'the speed composition formula' is a direct result of
>> the Lorentz transform, how can there be an inconsistency?
>>
>
> Paul, in my previous post 'More Speed Confusion' you argued that the
> speed composition formula was derived by AE from the experiments of
> Fizeau with the speed of light in water.
No, I didn't because it wasn't.
The Fizeau experiments confirms the formula.
You didn't answer my question.
You claimed that there was an inconsitency between
'the speed composition formula' an the Lorentz transform.
My question was:
Since 'the speed composition formula' is a direct result of
the Lorentz transform, how can there be an inconsistency?
Here is the calculation of the 'speed composition formula'
from the Lorentz transform again:
Given two frames of reference K and K', where K' is moving with the speed v
along the positive x-axis of K. Origins aligned at t = t' = 0, axes parallel.
Let an object move along the x-axis of K with the speed u, so that it is
at the events E_0 : x_0 = 0, t_0 = 0 and E_1 : x_1 = ut_1, t_1
The coordinates transformed to K':
E_0: x'_0 = 0, t'_0 = 0
E_1: x'_1 = gamma(x_1 - vt_1) = gamma.t_1(u-v)
t'_1 = gamma(t_1 - vx_1/c2) = gamma.t_1(1 - uv/c2)
The speed of the object in K':
w = (x'_1 - x'_0)/(t'_1 - t'_0) = (u-v)/(1 - uv/c2)
Now, please point out where you find an inconsisteny.
> Was Fizeau also the father of
> the Lorentz Transforms? Or was it Voigt?
>
> Peter Riedt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations
--
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@utopia.no> wrote:
>
>> Since 'the speed composition formula' is a direct result of
>> the Lorentz transform, how can there be an inconsistency?
>>
>> 'The speed composition formula' IS the Lorentz transform applied on
>> speed.
>
> I'm not ready to look at the details of what you're doing.
>
> But can you find a better name for it?
The speed transform formula?
> The way you're doing it
> practically begs for somebody to do:
"The way I am doing it" is the way it was done in 1905
and has been done ever since.
>
> This is your lorentz transform. [picture]
>
> This is your lorentz transform on speed. [weird picture]
Am I talking to people who are so ignorant that they find it
'weird' that the 'speed composition formula' follows from
the Lorentz transform?
--
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
> On Aug 18, 6:17 am, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@somewhere.no>
> wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>> On Aug 17, 11:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>>>> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> by Voigt in 1887. That would be 6 years after Michelson�s solo
>>>>> experiment; the same years as Michelson�s verification of his earlier
>>>>> experiment with Morley�s help; 18 years before Einstein the nitwit,
I have told you before, why didn't you read it?
Here it is again:
Note that you have to read the paper above for my
response to give a meaning.
But you never read the references you give, do you?
--
Paul
Jonah Thomas
> Jonah Thomas wrote:
> > The way you're doing it
> > practically begs for somebody to do:
>
> "The way I am doing it" is the way it was done in 1905
> and has been done ever since.
>
> >
> > This is your lorentz transform. [picture]
> >
> > This is your lorentz transform on speed. [weird picture]
>
> Am I talking to people who are so ignorant that they find it
> 'weird' that the 'speed composition formula' follows from
> the Lorentz transform?
Sorry, I was making a joke.
Peter Riedt wrote:
> 'The speed composition formula' IS the Lorentz transform applied on
> speed.
We have had a variety of jokes along those lines.
"This is your brain."
"This is your brain on speed."
Etc. It just seemed funny to me at the time. Sorry to interrupt your
train of thought.
Paul B. Andersen
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>> Jonah Thomas wrote:
>
>>> The way you're doing it
>>> practically begs for somebody to do:
>> "The way I am doing it" is the way it was done in 1905
>> and has been done ever since.
>>
>>> This is your lorentz transform. [picture]
>>>
>>> This is your lorentz transform on speed. [weird picture]
>> Am I talking to people who are so ignorant that they find it
>> 'weird' that the 'speed composition formula' follows from
>> the Lorentz transform?
>
> Sorry, I was making a joke.
>
> Peter Riedt wrote:
No, I wrote:
>> 'The speed composition formula' IS the Lorentz transform applied on
>> speed.
And now I see that it can be funny. :-)
> We have had a variety of jokes along those lines.
>
> "This is your brain."
> "This is your brain on speed."
>
> Etc. It just seemed funny to me at the time. Sorry to interrupt your
> train of thought.
OK, sorry, I didn't think along those lines. :-)
--
Paul
Tom Roberts
> Sue... wrote:
>> "Modified Sagnac experiment for measuring travel-time
>> difference between counter-propagating light beams
>> in a uniformly moving fiber" --
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609222
>
> have been doing.
> The experiment isn't a modified Sagnac experiment, it is a modified
> Fizeau experiment.
Not true. I agree that their diagram is not crystal clear, and
(influenced by your words) I initially thought that their
source/detector was at rest, "coupled" to and sliding along the moving
fiber-optic cable. But that is not so, the coupler is rigidly connected
to both ends of the fiber, to the source, and to the detector; the
coupler, source, and detector all move with the cable (on the
"conveyor"). The coupler splits the source into two counter-propagating
beams, and after they traverse the fiber it also combines the two beams
into the detector. This makes it, indeed, a "modified" Sagnac experiment.
Fizeau's experiment has a fixed source and detector
with a light path in a moving medium. Sagnac's
experiment has a source and detector moving with
the medium, as does this one.
Tom Roberts
Koobee Wublee
> On Aug 18, 3:17 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> > x' = x - vt
> > y' = y sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> > z' = z sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> > t' = t - vx/c^2
>
> > Since it's so simple mathematics, why don't we see?
>
> > Let a clock move uniformly from the event E_0 (t,x,y,z) = (0,0,0,0)
> > to the event E_1 = (t_1,vt_1,0,0).
> > Transformed to the clock's rest frame using the Voigt transform,
> > the coordinates of these events will be:
> > E_0 (t',x',y',z') = (0,0,0,0)
> > E_1: (t_1(1-v^2/c^2),0,0,0)
>
> > The moving clock is running slow - more so than predicted by SR.
> > Not time dilation?
>
> Ahahaha...
>
> That is what you get for chasing after too many chickens.
>
> Ahahaha...
>
> Since the Voigt transform does not satisfy the principle of
> relativity, we cannot inter-change primed and non-primed like the
> Lorentz transform. Going back to the equations you laid out for the
> Voigt transform, we have
>
> ** dt' = dt – B dx / c
> ** dx' = dx – B c dt
> ** dy' = dy sqrt(1 - B^2)
> ** dz' = dz sqrt(1 - B^2)
>
> Where
>
> ** B = v / c
>
> Notice that if the above is true, the following is not necessarily
> true.
>
> ** dt = dt’ + B dx’ / c
> ** dx = dx’ + B c dt’
> ** dy = dy’ sqrt(1 - B^2)
> ** dz = dz’ sqrt(1 - B^2)
>
> From the Voigt transform you have written down, simple algebra yields
> the following.
>
> ** dt = dt’ (1 + B dx’ / c) / (1 – B^2)
>
> Not the following as you have written,
>
> ** dt’ = dt (1 – B^2)
>
> Properly derived, the dx’ term is still there. So, how do you
> interpret all that?
It has been days that Professor Andersen has to ponder over my
response. I know that he is very busy chasing after chickens, but as
a professional courtesy, I think he needs to acknowledge his gross
mistake again. <shrug>
> The Voigt transform is actually very complex. It simply is beyond
> many self-styled physicists to understand. <shrug>
>
> Hint: Stop confusing the Dopper Effect with time dilation. Time
> dilation translates to a slow-down in the body metabolism of a living
> creature. The Doppler effect is not so.
>
> Ahahaha...
>
> You are getting more absurd. You should stop chasing after chickens
> for a change.
>
> Ahahaha...
Professor Andersen also had an excellent explanation on aberration in
which he has actually explained why the solar system does not fly
apart given the speed of gravity is finite. However, his model does
not work with the principle of relativity. It is time for Professor
Andersen to cross over from the dark side and to recognize that the
principle of relativity is not valid in all circumstances but only
when the speed involved is very low compared to the local value of the
speed of light. <shrug>
In that case, the Lorentz transform cannot possibly be any valid. In
fact, embracing the Lorentz transform is utterly stupid trying to
explain all these observed phenomena all around us. <shrug>
So, have we discovered the absolute frame of reference?
Hint: A Doppler shift in the following.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMBR
Peter did not recognize Christ three times? How many times are we not
going to recognize the absolute frame of reference with
electromagnetism being the first and the MMX being the second?
<shrug>
Sam Wormley
<laughing>
eric gisse
[...]
If you ignore him, he will go away. He hardly posts at all anymore.
Peter Riedt
wrote:
“Here is the calculation of the 'speed composition formula' from the
Lorentz transform again:
Given two frames of reference K and K', where K' is moving with the
speed v along the positive x-axis of K. Origins aligned at t = t' = 0,
axes parallel.
Let an object move along the x-axis of K with the speed u, so that it
is at the events E_0 : x_0 = 0, t_0 = 0 and E_1 : x_1 = ut_1, t_1
The coordinates transformed to K':
E_0: x'_0 = 0, t'_0 = 0
E_1: x'_1 = gamma(x_1 - vt_1) = gamma.t_1(u-v)
t'_1 = gamma(t_1 - vx_1/c2) = gamma.t_1(1 - uv/c2)
The speed of the object in K':
w = (x'_1 - x'_0)/(t'_1 - t'_0) = (u-v)/(1 - uv/c2)”
Paul, I cannot see how the foregoing shows that the speed composition
formula was derived from the Lorentz transforms or vice versa. You
‘calculate’ a speed but the speed of what? The facts are that AE
derived the speed formula from the work of Fizeau and Lorentz derived
the transforms from the work of Voigt who derived it from the work of
Doppler (Voigt ‘On Doppler’s Principle’ (‘Ueber das Doppler’sche
Prinzip’, Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Goettingen 2, 1887). If you want to
establish a relationship between the two formulas you should do it in
terms of v1, v2, v3, t and c. I doubt it can be done because the two
formulas have different grandfathers.
Peter Riedt
Paul B. Andersen
Sorry Tom, I am pretty sure I am right.
If the authors were right, it would indeed be quite remarkable
because they would have falsified the Special Theory of Relativity.
But they haven't.
I will explain why.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0609222v1
Look at their figure 2.
Since they vary the length of the fibre, and claim:
Quote from first part of 4. Discussion
<<
The phase shift delta_phi, and therefore, the travel-time difference
delta _t are proportional to both the total length and the speed of
the moving fiber whether the motion is circular or uniform.
Other tests using smaller end wheels for the FOC and fiber loops
with additional curves also confirmed the same finding.
>>
So the in principle, they claim that the result would be the same
if the radii of the wheels at each were zero. We would then have
an experiment something like this:
-> v
-----------------------------
( )
--------------,--------------
v <- |
source/det
So the question is, is this a modified Fizeau, or a modified Sagnac?
The authors claim:
<<
Our experiments differ from the Fizeau type
experiment [7] in which the medium, water or glass, is
moving, but the light source and detector are stationary.
In our FOC experiment, as in the Sagnac type experiments,
the light source and the detector are co- moving with the medium.
>>
But the central difference between Sagnac and Fizeau is that in Sagnac,
the source/detector is moving in a closed loop.
But in this experiment, the source/det is in linear, inertial motion,
and it is co-moving with only a part of the medium.
Let us redraw the experiment in the rest frame of the source/detector:
Let L be the length of the light-path
-> 2v
-----------------------------
( -> v )-> v
--------------,--------------
|
source/det
It is clear that this is a variant of Fizeau's experiment.
The medium is stationary in the lower leg, but is moving
with the speed 2v in the upper. The two contra moving
light rays will move with different speed in the upper leg.
SR predicts:
The speeds of the light in the upper leg are for the two beams:
v_f = c/n - 2v(1-1/n^2) = (c/n)(1 - (2v/c)(n-1/n))
v_b = c/n + 2v(1-1/n^2) = (c/n)(1 + (2v/c)(n-1/n))
The difference in transit time source-det will be
(the lower leg contributes nothing to the difference):
delta_t = (L/2)/v_f - (L/2)/v_b = (2Lv/c^2)(n^2-1)
delta_phi = 4.pi.L.v(n^2-1)/c.lambda
Note that the phase shift depend on the index of refraction n.
Note also that SR predict _no phase shift_ if n = 1,
that is if we used mirrors in stead of fibre.
The paper doesn't state what n was, but the core in a typical
single mode fibre has n = 1.48, (n^2 - 1) = 1.19
So SR predicts:
delta_phi = 4.pi.L.v*1.19/c.lambda
The authors claim that their measurements are consistent
with the formula:
delta_phi = 4.pi.L.v/c.lambda
which is pretty close to what SR predicts.
The authors claim:
<<
The travel-time difference delta_t = 2vL/c^2 in our
experiment is independent of the refractive index n, as
in the Sagnac type experiment.
>>
Note that this in fact is a claim that SR is falsified,
because SR predicts no phase shift if n = 1.
(SR predicts no first order dependency of v if n = 1.)
It is true that the travel time difference is independent of
Sue...
wrote:
<< There had been a historical dispute on the interplay
between the Sagnac effect and the Fresnel
drag effect since the first demonstration of an
operating fiber optic gyroscope was reported by
Vali and Shorthill in the 1970’s. It is finally
recognized that dispersion can in no way influence
the magnitude of the Sagnac effect.
Leonhardt and Piwnicki analyzed... >>
http://piers.mit.edu/piersonline/download.php?file=MDgxMDA2MDYwMTM0fFZvbDRObzhQYWdlODU5dG84NjUucGRm
Sue...
>
> --
> Paul
>
> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
Paul B. Andersen
> Lorentz transform again:
> Given two frames of reference K and K', where K' is moving with the
> speed v along the positive x-axis of K. Origins aligned at t = t' = 0,
> axes parallel.
> Let an object move along the x-axis of K with the speed u, so that it
> is at the events E_0 : x_0 = 0, t_0 = 0 and E_1 : x_1 = ut_1, t_1
> The coordinates transformed to K':
> E_0: x'_0 = 0, t'_0 = 0
> E_1: x'_1 = gamma(x_1 - vt_1) = gamma.t_1(u-v)
> t'_1 = gamma(t_1 - vx_1/c2) = gamma.t_1(1 - uv/c2)
> The speed of the object in K':
>
> Paul, I cannot see how the foregoing shows that the speed composition
> formula was derived from the Lorentz transforms or vice versa. You
I see.
You are a hopeless case.
> The facts are that AE
> derived the speed formula from the work of Fizeau and Lorentz derived
> the transforms from the work of Voigt who derived it from the work of
> Doppler (Voigt �On Doppler�s Principle� (�Ueber das Doppler�sche
> Prinzip�, Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Goettingen 2, 1887). If you want to
> establish a relationship between the two formulas you should do it in
> terms of v1, v2, v3, t and c. I doubt it can be done because the two
> formulas have different grandfathers.
>
> Peter Riedt
You will keep your misconceptions whatever I say, so I will say nothing.
--
Paul
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@utopia.no> wrote in message
news:4A91C479...@utopia.no...
> Peter Riedt wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 10:05 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@somewhere.no>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Lorentz transform again:
>> Given two frames of reference K and K', where K' is moving with the
>> speed v along the positive x-axis of K. Origins aligned at t = t' = 0,
>> axes parallel.
>> Let an object move along the x-axis of K with the speed u, so that it
>> is at the events E_0 : x_0 = 0, t_0 = 0 and E_1 : x_1 = ut_1, t_1
>> The coordinates transformed to K':
>> E_0: x'_0 = 0, t'_0 = 0
>> E_1: x'_1 = gamma(x_1 - vt_1) = gamma.t_1(u-v)
>> t'_1 = gamma(t_1 - vx_1/c2) = gamma.t_1(1 - uv/c2)
>> The speed of the object in K':
>>
>> Paul, I cannot see how the foregoing shows that the speed composition
>> formula was derived from the Lorentz transforms or vice versa. You
>
> I see.
> You are a hopeless case.
I see. You are a hopeless bigot.
>
>> The facts are that AE
>> derived the speed formula from the work of Fizeau and Lorentz derived
>> the transforms from the work of Voigt who derived it from the work of
>> Doppler (Voigt �On Doppler�s Principle� (�Ueber das Doppler�sche
>> Prinzip�, Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Goettingen 2, 1887). If you want to
>> establish a relationship between the two formulas you should do it in
>> terms of v1, v2, v3, t and c. I doubt it can be done because the two
>> formulas have different grandfathers.
>>
>> Peter Riedt
>
> You will keep your misconceptions whatever I say, so I will say nothing.
Then shut the fuck up and piss off.
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> Sue... wrote:
>>>> "Modified Sagnac experiment for measuring travel-time
>>>> difference between counter-propagating light beams
>>>> in a uniformly moving fiber" --
>>>> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609222
>>> In this case it indicates that the authors don't quite know what they
>>> have been doing.
>>> The experiment isn't a modified Sagnac experiment, it is a modified
>>> Fizeau experiment.
>> Fizeau's experiment has a fixed source and detector
>> with a light path in a moving medium. Sagnac's
>> experiment has a source and detector moving with
>> the medium, as does this one.
>
Nope. The definitive indication is when one considers it in vacuum with
4 angled mirrors instead of their fiber and wheels:
M/---------------------------\M
| |
| ............ |
M\---------- -------------/M
. \ / .
. \/C . The coupler C is like a standard
. /\ .==> 4-port optical coupler: it splits
. / \ . light from the source into both
. D S . directions, and combines both into D.
............
The detector (D), source(S), and coupler (C) are all mounted on the
"conveyor" (dotted square) and move to the right relative to the four
fixed angled mirrors (M). (This is like their drawings; yours has the
motion reversed, and is then transformed to the conveyor frame.)
In their implementation, the light path is in fiber and the
left and right ends move around wheels so the upper dashed
line moves to the left.
If this were similar to Fizeau's experiment, n=1 would give zero fringe
shift; but since this is similar to Sagnac's experiment, n=1 gives
nonzero fringe shift. It's clear there is a fringe shift proportional to
the conveyor velocity, as the two propagation directions have different
distances to travel.
Topologically, the light path is ROTATING. For a fiber
it is a physical rotation, distorted to put two straight
sections into the path, and the straights do not rotate.
Another indication: if this were like Fizeau the vertical distance
between mirrors in the drawing would not affect the fringe shift; as it
is like Sagnac, increasing that distance enlarges the enclosed area and
increases the fringe shift. It's clear that in vacuum the fringe shift
does indeed increase when the upper mirrors are located further up --
the light travel time is longer, increasing the path difference between
the two propagation directions.
> If the authors were right, it would indeed be quite remarkable
> because they would have falsified the Special Theory of Relativity.
Not true. This does not falsify SR, just as Sagnac does not.
> Note that the phase shift depend on the index of refraction n.
> Note also that SR predict _no phase shift_ if n = 1,
> that is if we used mirrors in stead of fibre.
You goofed. The system in the above drawing obviously gives nonzero
phase shift with n=1. I have not checked your algebra, but I STRONGLY
suspect the problem is that you did not use the Lorentz composition of
velocities, you seem to have used an approximation to it.
Tom Roberts
waldofj
no, he derived it from the Lorentz transformation
it's in section 5 of his 1905 paper
personally I find Paul's use of symbols confusing
I don't know if this will help but here goes:
Here is what I mean by composition of velocities:
I’m on my bicycle going down the road at 20 mph, I lob a baseball in
front of me going 20 mph relative to me. Question: how fast is the
baseball going relative to the ground?
I will derive two formulas, one based on the Galilean transformation
(it's easier to follow and demonstrates my methodology)
and one based on the Lorentz transformation.
Actually I’ll be working with the reverse transformations.
To be clear I will define some terms I’ll be using:
The coordinate system associated with the ground will be the un-primed
coordinate system using (t,x,y,z). the coordinate system associated
with me on my bicycle will be the moving system with the primed
coordinates (t’, x’, y’, z’) . The baseballs’ velocity is described
in my system as dx’/dt’ which I will call v2. My velocity with respect
to the ground (the velocity between the two coordinate systems) is v1.
What I want to find is dx/dt, the velocity of the
baseball with respect to the ground, which I will call, v.
gamma = 1 / ((1 – (v^2 / c^2))^ ½).
I want to get dx/dt (which is v) from dx’/dt’ (which is v2)
I do this by multiplying as follows
dx/dt = dx’/dt’ * dx/dx’ * dt’/dt
(I will make a simplification right now. It works out that dealing
with dt’/dt is incredibly difficult. I will instead divide by it’s
reciprocal) so:
dx/dt = (dx’/dt’ * dx/dx’) / dt/dt’
First the reverse Galilean transformation:
(keeping in mind I'm using v1 as the relative
speed between the twp frames)
z = z’
y = y’
t = t’
x = x’ + (v1 * t’)
ok, some differential calculus now
dx/dx’ = 1 + (v1 * dt’/dx’)
but dt’/dx’ is just 1 / v2 so:
dx/dx’ = 1 + (v1 / v2)
multiply dx’/dt’ (which is v2) by dx/dx’, and divide by dt/dt’
you get
dx/dt = (v1 + v2) / dt/dt’
dx/dt is v (the ball's velocity w.r.t. the ground)
and since t = t’, dt/dt’ = 1 so:
v = v1 + v2 is the end result.
Now the reverse Lorenz transformation:
z = z’
y = y’
x = (x’ + (v1 * t’)) * gamma
t = (t’ + (v1 * x’ / c^2)) * gamma
dx/dx’ is very similar to the above equation
dx/dx’ = (1 + (v1 / v2)) * gamma (the gamma term being the only
difference)
multiplied by dx’/dt’ (which is v2) and divided by dt/dt’
v = ((v1 + v2) * gamma) / dt/dt’
dt/dt’ = (1 + ((v1 / c^2) * dx’/dt’)) * gamma
but dx’/dt’ is v2 so:
dt/dt’ = (1 + (v1 * v2 / c^2)) * gamma so:
v = ((v1 + v2) * gamma) / ((1 + (v1 x v2 / c^2)) * gamma)
the gamma’s divide out and we have
v = (v1 + v2) / (1 + (v1 * v2 / c^2))
so, using the numbers from my example above:
the ball's velocity w.r.t. the ground is
by the Galilean transformation:
v = v1 + v2
v = 20 + 20
v = 40
by the Lorentz transformation:
v = (v1 + v2) / (1 + (v1 * v2 / c^2))
v = (20 + 20) / (1 + (20 * 20 / c^2))
v = 39.999999999999964314721319384703
Sue...
>
> You goofed. The system in the above drawing obviously gives nonzero
> phase shift with n=1. I have not checked your algebra, but I STRONGLY
> suspect the problem is that you did not use the Lorentz composition of
> velocities, you seem to have used an approximation to it.
The Lorentz composition *IS* an approximation.
Have you again forgotten your own words?
~Light has no mass~
For Sagnac and Fizeau, better models seem to result if
you combine angular and linear momentum at the atomic
or molecular domain in the dielectric.
Sue...
>
> Tom Roberts
Androcles
"waldofj" <wal...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bc5d3c3b-35be-4ba3...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
==========================================
You don't know if this will help but here goes:
Babbling idiot.
Why did the cretin Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
You don't know shit from shinola.
Inertial
news:s%6lm.124$Lm...@newsfe21.ams2...
>
> "waldofj" <wal...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:bc5d3c3b-35be-4ba3...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 22, 12:01 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 10:05 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@somewhere.no>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Lorentz transform again:
>> Given two frames of reference K and K', where K' is moving with the
>> speed v along the positive x-axis of K. Origins aligned at t = t' = 0,
>> axes parallel.
>> Let an object move along the x-axis of K with the speed u, so that it
>> is at the events E_0 : x_0 = 0, t_0 = 0 and E_1 : x_1 = ut_1, t_1
>> The coordinates transformed to K':
>> E_0: x'_0 = 0, t'_0 = 0
>> E_1: x'_1 = gamma(x_1 - vt_1) = gamma.t_1(u-v)
>> t'_1 = gamma(t_1 - vx_1/c2) = gamma.t_1(1 - uv/c2)
>> The speed of the object in K':
>>
>> Paul, I cannot see how the foregoing shows that the speed composition
>> formula was derived from the Lorentz transforms or vice versa. You
>> derived the speed formula from the work of Fizeau and Lorentz derived
>> the transforms from the work of Voigt who derived it from the work of
>> establish a relationship between the two formulas you should do it in
>> terms of v1, v2, v3, t and c. I doubt it can be done because the two
>> formulas have different grandfathers.
>>
>> Peter Riedt
>
>> The facts are that AE
>> derived the speed formula from the work of Fizeau
> no, he derived it from the Lorentz transformation
> it's in section 5 of his 1905 paper
> personally I find Paul's use of symbols confusing
> I don't know if this will help but here goes:
>
> Here is what I mean by composition of velocities:
> front of me going 20 mph relative to me. Question: how fast is the
> baseball going relative to the ground?
> I will derive two formulas, one based on the Galilean transformation
> (it's easier to follow and demonstrates my methodology)
> and one based on the Lorentz transformation.
>
> To be clear I will define some terms I�ll be using:
> The coordinate system associated with the ground will be the un-primed
> coordinate system using (t,x,y,z). the coordinate system associated
> with me on my bicycle will be the moving system with the primed
> in my system as dx�/dt� which I will call v2. My velocity with respect
> to the ground (the velocity between the two coordinate systems) is v1.
> What I want to find is dx/dt, the velocity of the
> baseball with respect to the ground, which I will call, v.
>
> I want to get dx/dt (which is v) from dx�/dt� (which is v2)
> I do this by multiplying as follows
> (I will make a simplification right now. It works out that dealing
> reciprocal) so:
> dx/dt = (dx�/dt� * dx/dx�) / dt/dt�
>
> First the reverse Galilean transformation:
> (keeping in mind I'm using v1 as the relative
> speed between the twp frames)
> y = y�
> t = t�
> x = x� + (v1 * t�)
>
> ok, some differential calculus now
> but dt�/dx� is just 1 / v2 so:
> dx/dx� = 1 + (v1 / v2)
> multiply dx�/dt� (which is v2) by dx/dx�, and divide by dt/dt�
> you get
> dx/dt = (v1 + v2) / dt/dt�
> dx/dt is v (the ball's velocity w.r.t. the ground)
> v = v1 + v2 is the end result.
>
> Now the reverse Lorenz transformation:
> y = y�
> x = (x� + (v1 * t�)) * gamma
> t = (t� + (v1 * x� / c^2)) * gamma
>
> dx/dx� is very similar to the above equation
> dx/dx� = (1 + (v1 / v2)) * gamma (the gamma term being the only
> difference)
> multiplied by dx�/dt� (which is v2) and divided by dt/dt�
> v = ((v1 + v2) * gamma) / dt/dt�
> dt/dt� = (1 + ((v1 / c^2) * dx�/dt�)) * gamma
> but dx�/dt� is v2 so:
> dt/dt� = (1 + (v1 * v2 / c^2)) * gamma so:
> v = ((v1 + v2) * gamma) / ((1 + (v1 x v2 / c^2)) * gamma)
> v = (v1 + v2) / (1 + (v1 * v2 / c^2))
> so, using the numbers from my example above:
> the ball's velocity w.r.t. the ground is
> by the Galilean transformation:
> v = v1 + v2
> v = 20 + 20
> v = 40
> by the Lorentz transformation:
> v = (v1 + v2) / (1 + (v1 * v2 / c^2))
> v = (20 + 20) / (1 + (20 * 20 / c^2))
> v = 39.999999999999964314721319384703
>
> ==========================================
> You don't know if this will help but here goes:
> Babbling idiot.
> Why did the cretin Einstein say
> the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> the "time" each way is the same?
Of course, the answer is that he didn't
Paul B. Andersen
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> Sue... wrote:
>>>>> "Modified Sagnac experiment for measuring travel-time
>>>>> difference between counter-propagating light beams
>>>>> in a uniformly moving fiber" --
>>>>> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609222
>>>> In this case it indicates that the authors don't quite know what
>>>> they have been doing.
>>>> The experiment isn't a modified Sagnac experiment, it is a modified
>>>> Fizeau experiment.
>>> Not true. [...] This makes it, indeed, a "modified" Sagnac experiment.
>>> Fizeau's experiment has a fixed source and detector
>>> with a light path in a moving medium. Sagnac's
>>> experiment has a source and detector moving with
>>> the medium, as does this one.
>>
>> Sorry Tom, I am pretty sure I am right.
>
> Nope.
Yes. I am wrong. Plain and simply completely wrong!
(I think what led me astray was the fact that there is
a phase difference even when the enclosed area is zero.
Doesn't look like a Sagnac experiment.)
> The definitive indication is when one considers it in vacuum with
> 4 angled mirrors instead of their fiber and wheels:
>
> M/---------------------------\M
> | |
> | ............ |
> M\---------- -------------/M
> . \ / .
> . \/C . The coupler C is like a standard
> . /\ .==> 4-port optical coupler: it splits
> . / \ . light from the source into both
> . D S . directions, and combines both into D.
> ............
>
> The detector (D), source(S), and coupler (C) are all mounted on the
> "conveyor" (dotted square) and move to the right relative to the four
> fixed angled mirrors (M). (This is like their drawings; yours has the
> motion reversed, and is then transformed to the conveyor frame.)
>
> In their implementation, the light path is in fiber and the
> left and right ends move around wheels so the upper dashed
> line moves to the left.
>
> If this were similar to Fizeau's experiment, n=1 would give zero fringe
> shift; but since this is similar to Sagnac's experiment, n=1 gives
> nonzero fringe shift. It's clear there is a fringe shift proportional to
> the conveyor velocity, as the two propagation directions have different
> distances to travel.
Indeed.
>
> Topologically, the light path is ROTATING. For a fiber
> it is a physical rotation, distorted to put two straight
> sections into the path, and the straights do not rotate.
But this 'rotation' is quite different from the rotation
in a normal Sagnac ring.
>
> Another indication: if this were like Fizeau the vertical distance
> between mirrors in the drawing would not affect the fringe shift; as it
> is like Sagnac, increasing that distance enlarges the enclosed area and
> increases the fringe shift. It's clear that in vacuum the fringe shift
> does indeed increase when the upper mirrors are located further up --
> the light travel time is longer, increasing the path difference between
> the two propagation directions.
But in this case the enclosed area is of no importance whatsoever.
As long as the coupler is moving along a straight line on a straight
part of the light-path is the shape of the light path of no importance.
It is _only_ the length of the path that matters.
It is in fact quite simple to analyse (which doesn't make my blunder
any less).
Let's first consider the case with stationary mirrors in vacuum.
Regardless how the light path is shaped, will the coupler have
moved a distance vt, where t is the time for the light to go
around the light path. So the light going with the motion of
the coupler has to go the distance L + vt, while the contra moving
light has to go the distance L - vt, where L is the length of
the light path.
So for the light going with the motion of the coupler, we have:
c.t_f = L + v.t_f t_f = L/(c-v)
And the other:
c.t_b = L - v.t_b t_b = L/(c+v)
delta_t = t_f - t_b = L/(c-v) - L/(c+v) = 2Lv/(c^2-v^2) ~= 2Lv/c^2
>> If the authors were right, it would indeed be quite remarkable
>> because they would have falsified the Special Theory of Relativity.
>
> Not true. This does not falsify SR, just as Sagnac does not.
Right.
SR predicts what they observed.
>
>> Note that the phase shift depend on the index of refraction n.
>> Note also that SR predict _no phase shift_ if n = 1,
>> that is if we used mirrors in stead of fibre.
>
> You goofed. The system in the above drawing obviously gives nonzero
> phase shift with n=1. I have not checked your algebra, but I STRONGLY
> suspect the problem is that you did not use the Lorentz composition of
> velocities, you seem to have used an approximation to it.
Indeed I goofed.
I am not even sure how I managed to arrive at the wrong equation.
But here is the correct one for a fibre with index of refraction n:
Speed of 'forward' light: c_f = c(1+nv/c)/(n+v/c)
Speed of 'backward' light: c_b = c(1-nv/c)/(n-v/c)
t_f = L/(c_f - v)
t_b = L/(c_b + v)
delta_t = t_f - t_b = L(c_b-c_f+2v)/(c_f.C_b+v(c_f-c_b)-v^2)
putting in for c_f and c_b yields:
delta_t = 2Lv(1-v^2/c^2)/[c^2(1-n^2.v^2/c^2)-v^2(2-n^2-v^2/c^2)]
a first order approximation in v/c is:
delta_t = 2Lv/c^2
There is no first order dependency on the index of refraction.
Just like an ordinary FOG.
The authors were right about everything.
(But I do think it is to stretch it a little to call it
a modified Sagnac experiment. A Sagnac experiment where
the enclosed area is of no importance?)
--
Paul
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote in message
news:4A95A5C...@guesswhatuia.no...
Hilarious, yes?
BTW, the enclosed area is of no importance.
Idiot.
Hilarious, no?
Darwin123
> Jenny wrote:
> > On Aug 17, 6:35 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not my fault people are arguing with a knowledge base that peaked at what is
> taught in high school.
>
> [...]
They went to high school?
Tom Roberts
> (I think what led me astray was the fact that there is
> a phase difference even when the enclosed area is zero.
Yes. The phase difference is proportional to the perimeter, not the area.
> Doesn't look like a Sagnac experiment.)
Only vaguely.
> But in this case the enclosed area is of no importance whatsoever.
> As long as the coupler is moving along a straight line on a straight
> part of the light-path is the shape of the light path of no importance.
> It is _only_ the length of the path that matters.
And the conveyor velocity.
> There is no first order dependency on the index of refraction.
> Just like an ordinary FOG.
> The authors were right about everything.
Yes.
> (But I do think it is to stretch it a little to call it
> a modified Sagnac experiment. A Sagnac experiment where
> the enclosed area is of no importance?)
Yes, it is a stretch, but not an unreasonable one IMHO.
Tom Roberts