Are all SRists soooo dense ?
Marcel Luttgens
Indeed, they seem unable to realize that the Lorentz transformation
are false. But, perhaps, they are simply too brainwhashed to
understand the following demonstration.
(see also http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/LTfalse.htm )
Proof of the falseness of the LT
________________________________
After supposing that two frame of reference, S and S', are each
in uniform translatory motion relative to the other, the velocity
of S' relative to S being v,
1) Einstein began his derivation with the relations
(1) x' = ax + bt, and
(2) t' = ex + ft
2) Then he correctly claimed that at the origin of S', x' = 0 and x = vt.
Hence, 0 = (av+b)t, whence b = -av
3) Now, he supposed that a light signal, starting from the coincident
origins of frames S and S' at t = t' = 0, travels toward positive x.
After a time t, it will be at x = ct, and also at
x' = ct', since the speed of light is the same in
all frames.
Substituting these values of x and x' in relations
(1) and (2), and eliminating t and t', he found
0 = ac + b - ec^2 - fc.
If the signal travels toward negative x, x = -ct and x' = -ct', thus
0 = -ac + b -ec^2 + fc.
Hence, a = f and b = ec^2 (or e = b/c^2).
Comments:
After step 3, one has a = f and b = -fv = ec^2.
Hence, e = -fv/c^2.
Substituting these constants in
(1) x' = ax + bt, and
(2) t' = ex + ft, one obtains
(1') x' = fx - fvt = f(x-vt) and
(2') t' = ft - fvx/c^2 = f(t-xv/c^2)
4) Now, a light signal follow the y' axis. Relatively to S,
it travels obliquely, for, while the signal goes
a distance ct, the y' axis advances a distance x = vt.
Thus c^2t^2 = v^2t^2 + y^2, whence y = sqrt(c^2 - v^2) * t.
But, also, y' = ct' = c(ev + f) * t.
Equating y' to y, he found
c(ev + f) = sqrt(c^2 - v^2) = c * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), and claimed:
"Since, by prior results, e = b/c^2 = -av/c^2 = -fv/c^2,
it follows that cf(1 - v^2/c^2) = c * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
and f = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
All constants thus being determined, the relations (1) and (2)
can be written
x' = f(x - vt) and t' = f(t - vx/c^2)."
Comments:
We have seen that, in order to calculate f, Einstein equated
y' = ct' = c(ev + f) * t to y = sqrt(c^2 - v^2) * t, where
e = -fv/c^2, thus getting f = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
His relation y' = ct' = c(ev + f) * t implies t' = (ev + f) * t.
Einstein has of course obtained this last relation by replacing x
by vt in his basic relation (2) t' = ex + ft. Hence, logically,
the validity of his f is limited to the cases where x = vt.
We have shown above that by replacing e by -fv/c^2 in (2) t' = ex + ft,
one straightforwardly gets the "time" LT t' = f(t - vx/c^2).
According to Einstein, the "time" LT is valid for any value of x,
but this is logically false, because by equating
y' = ct' = cf(t - vx/c^2) to y = sqrt(c^2 - v^2) * t,
one also gets cf(1 - v^2/c^2) = c * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2),
and f = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), but only if x = vt.
Consequently, the applicability of the "time" transform
t' = f(t - vx/c^2) is restricted to the cases where x = vt.
Hence, the LT x' = f(x - vt) and t' = f(t - vx/c^2) reduce to
x' = 0
t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
Conclusively, Einstein's LT, that he called the Lorentz transformation,
are, at best, the result of a logical error, and at worst, a HOAX.
Marcel Luttgens
Dirk Van de moortel
"Marcel Luttgens" <mutt...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:b45b8808.02101...@posting.google.com...
> Are all SRists soooo dense ?
>
> Indeed, they seem unable to realize that the Lorentz transformation
> are false. But, perhaps, they are simply too brainwhashed to
> understand the following demonstration.
>
> (see also http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/LTfalse.htm )
>
> Proof of the falseness of the LT
> ________________________________
>
> After supposing that two frame of reference, S and S', are each
> in uniform translatory motion relative to the other, the velocity
> of S' relative to S being v,
>
> 1) Einstein began his derivation with the relations
> (1) x' = ax + bt, and
> (2) t' = ex + ft
Sounds exactly like your:
| Let us remember that Einstein derived the transformation
| from the two relations:
| x' = Ax + Bt (1) and t' = Ex + gamma t (2)
| (Instead of A, B and E, Einstein used alpha, beta and epsilon).
Completely dealt with on thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=20011120105931...@nso-cl.aol.com
Dirk Vdm
HenriWilson
Dead right.
Henri Wilson.
Technologist.
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
Karl Forsberg
The Lorentz group consisting essentially of the compositions of spatial
rotations and Lorentz transformations is the origin- and metric-
preserving symmetry-group of Minkowski space. If someone comes up with a
mess when trying to do calculations with Lorentz transformations it is
really a testimony of this persons confusedness and nothing else.
Bilge
>Are all SRists soooo dense ? to usenet:
They have to be in order to survive the onslaught of those denser.
BTW, where is your response to my request to show that rotations
are also bogus, since rotations "suffer" the same "flaw" you claim
exists in the lorentz transforms. To the best I can tell, if your
argument was valid, it would also "prove" that a vector rotated by
an angle \theta, was not a vector rotated by an angle \theta. I'm
not sure what it would be, but then again, I'm too dense to see that
your argument proves anything apart from something unrelated to
relativity.
Stephen Speicher
> Are all SRists soooo dense ?
>
> Indeed, they seem unable to realize that the Lorentz transformation
> are false.
No, you misunderstand. All "SRists" realize that the Lorentz
transformation is false, but they banded together and have kept
it a well-kept secret for these many years. That is the _only_
reason that your own well thought-out, incredibly perceptive,
highly skilled and advanced analysis is always mocked, i.e., no
one, not even Dirk can offer logical or mathematical arguments
against your superlative presentations, so instead everyone makes
fun of you to cover up the well-known failure of the Lorentz
transformation. Give them a break, since they no not what they
do.
[Snip incredibly brilliant analysis that we want to conceal.]
>
> Conclusively, Einstein's LT, that he called the Lorentz transformation,
> are, at best, the result of a logical error, and at worst, a HOAX.
>
If you must be a whistleblower on this well-kept secret, would
you please at least not shout it out. It is hard enough for
everyone to scramble and cover things up after your incisive
analyses, without also having to deal with shouting. Thanks for
your consideration.
p.s. Do they still serve meat loaf on Tuesday nights at the
asylum?
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marcel Luttgens
No, you overlooked the fact that Einstein obtained f = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2),
first by replacing x by vt in his basic relation (2) t' = ex + ft,
thus obtaining t' = (ev + f) * t, second by equating y' = ct' = c(ev + f) * t
to y = sqrt(c^2 - v^2) * t, thus getting ev + f = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), and finally
by replacing e by -fv/c^2 in this last relation, thus finally getting
f = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
Only crackpots will claim that such f doesn't imply x = vt.
Otoh, one gets exactly the same f, first by replacing e by -fv/c^2 in
(2) t' = ex + ft, thus obtaining the "time" LT t' = f(t - vx/c^2), allegedly
valid for any value of x, second by equating y' = ct' = cf(t - vx/c^2)
to y = sqrt(c^2 - v^2) * t, thus getting f(t - vx/c^2) = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) * t,
and finally by replacing x by vt, thus finally obtaining f = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
No wonder that the one gets the same f, as the two methods are mathematically
equivalent. But the second method shows clearly that the "time" LT makes only
sense if x = vt. For all other values of x, the transform gives false results.
But crackpots will persistently claim that the "time" LT is valid for all x,
and deny that Einstein's LT, that he cleverly called the Lorentz transformation,
are, at best, the result of a logical error, and at worst, a HOAX.
> Dirk Vdm
Marcel Luttgens
Dirk Van de moortel
"Marcel Luttgens" <mutt...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:b45b8808.02101...@posting.google.com...
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<5xcq9.158867$8o4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>...
[snip]
> > Completely dealt with on thread:
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=20011120105931...@nso-cl.aol.com
> >
>
> No, you overlooked the fact that Einstein obtained f = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2),
You overlooked the fact that I was not born yesterday.
Dirk Vdm
Marcel Luttgens
Seemingly, as a crackpot !
>
> Dirk Vdm
Marcel Luttgens
Paul B. Andersen
Note this:
> 4) Now, a light signal follow the y' axis. Relatively to S,
> it travels obliquely, for, while the signal goes
> a distance ct, the y' axis advances a distance x = vt.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Thus c^2t^2 = v^2t^2 + y^2, whence y = sqrt(c^2 - v^2) * t.
> But, also, y' = ct' = c(ev + f) * t.
>
> Equating y' to y, he found
>
> c(ev + f) = sqrt(c^2 - v^2) = c * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), and claimed:
>
> "Since, by prior results, e = b/c^2 = -av/c^2 = -fv/c^2,
> it follows that cf(1 - v^2/c^2) = c * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> and f = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
>
> All constants thus being determined, the relations (1) and (2)
> can be written
> x' = f(x - vt) and t' = f(t - vx/c^2)."
>
> Comments:
>
> We have seen that, in order to calculate f, Einstein equated
> y' = ct' = c(ev + f) * t to y = sqrt(c^2 - v^2) * t, where
> e = -fv/c^2, thus getting f = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
>
> His relation y' = ct' = c(ev + f) * t implies t' = (ev + f) * t.
> Einstein has of course obtained this last relation by replacing x
> by vt in his basic relation (2) t' = ex + ft. Hence, logically,
> the validity of his f is limited to the cases where x = vt.
Nonsense.
The validity of this is limited to the cases where the y' axis
advances the distance vt during the time t.
That is to cases where the speed of S' relative to S is v.
Why are you soooo dense, Marcel?
Paul
Dirk Van de moortel
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:6808d165.02101...@posting.google.com...
> mutt...@wanadoo.fr (Marcel Luttgens) wrote in message news:<b45b8808.02101...@posting.google.com>...
> > Are all SRists soooo dense ?
[snot]
> >
>
> Note this:
>
> > 4) Now, a light signal follow the y' axis. Relatively to S,
> > it travels obliquely, for, while the signal goes
> > a distance ct, the y' axis advances a distance x = vt.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> >
[snot]
> >
> Nonsense.
> The validity of this is limited to the cases where the y' axis
> advances the distance vt during the time t.
> That is to cases where the speed of S' relative to S is v.
>
>
> Why are you soooo dense, Marcel?
Since he has tried just about everything there is to try to show
that he is actualy senile - at the age of 29 nota bene - he has no
other option than to deliberately repeat the errors he has been
making and making and making.
Glad to see that you are taking over, since I surely know I'm
getting bored copy/pasting the same set of refutations over
and over and over again.
Just another sad idiot would-be terrorist.
What keeps them going I often wonder?
Dirk Vdm
Patrick Reany
What causes them in the first place? Is it
nature or nurture (in the science classroom)?
Patrick
Dirk Van de moortel
"Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message news:3DAC8B0D...@asu.edu...
>
>
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > Just another sad idiot would-be terrorist.
> > What keeps them going I often wonder?
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> What causes them in the first place? Is it
> nature or nurture (in the science classroom)?
I know what you're thinking, but I think it's pure nature.
Getting kicked their ass on each and every occasion and
still coming back to get it kicked again. It must be some
kind of missing brain part. Or... well, yes, perhaps it's
nurture indeed, something fundamental they didn't get
before the age of twenty weeks or so. By the time these
creatures arrive in your science classroom, the damage
has been done a long time ago.
Dirk Vdm
HenriWilson
And what makes the arch-conformist who accepts everything he reads without
question and is prepared to die to protect his (often ailing) faith. Your
'crackpot' is the opposite of our 'self-delusionist'.
Patrick Reany
HenriWilson wrote:
Why is it so impossible to consider that all these
hundreds of misconceptions revealed by the
cranks on this NG are the result of what is and
what isn't being taught to students in their science
classrooms? It seems the logical place to look for
the source of these misconceptions to me. It's
far easier to prevent misconceptions than to try
to correct them after they have taken hold. Are
we going to let this go on without remedy forever?
Patrick
ca314159
"Yes we are," insisted Majikthise. "We are quite definitely here as
representatives of the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages,
Luminaries and Other Thinking Persons, and we want this machine off,
and we want it off now!"
"What's the problem?" said Lunkwill.
"I'll tell you what the problem is mate," said Majikthise,
"demarcation, that's the problem!"
"We demand," yelled Vroomfondel, "that demarcation may or may not be the problem!"
http://k76.ryd.student.liu.se/~lindahl/other/guide/hg-1-25.html
David Evens
wrote:
The VERY best line being, "We demand RIGIDLY defines areas of doubt
and uncertainty!"
Robert Kolker
Patrick Reany wrote:
>
> Why is it so impossible to consider that all these
> hundreds of misconceptions revealed by the
> cranks on this NG are the result of what is and
> what isn't being taught to students in their science
> classrooms? It seems the logical place to look for
> the source of these misconceptions to me. It's
> far easier to prevent misconceptions than to try
> to correct them after they have taken hold. Are
> we going to let this go on without remedy forever?
The instrumentalist or pragmatic view of scientific theory is not taught
in American high schools. Theory, when it is taught at all, is presented
as a completed entity delivered directly from Mt. Olympus. The
intermediate steps to final results (which are the most important steps
of all) are generally left out. Even at the college level the
epistemological issues are generally not covered or covered only
superficially.
Bob Kolker
ca314159
> The VERY best line being, "We demand RIGIDLY defines areas of doubt
> and uncertainty!"
I have no doubt that I'm uncertain whether a spork is a spoon or a fork.
It is both, it is neither. It is certainly a brain teaser.
http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~jm703496/spork/
puppe...@hotmail.com
[snip]
> And what makes the arch-conformist who accepts everything he reads without
> question and is prepared to die to protect his (often ailing) faith. Your
> 'crackpot' is the opposite of our 'self-delusionist'.
I was in university for 12 years. 4 as an undegrad, 1 and change
as a masters student, just under 5 as a Phd student, and 2 as a
post-doc. I can honestly say I met exactly zero such persons in
academic physics.
I did meet a few kooks. Sometimes they were fun, sometimes scary.
Some would wander into the department and the duty to entertain
them would be passed around among the grad students. Some would
rage into the department and the duty to restrain them fell on
the security people.
But people willing to go to extremes to defend the faith? Nope.
Not one. New ideas can mean fame, fortune, and prizes me lad.
Henri old snail-shell. Bring some data. Bring an analysis that
actually does not have gaping errors in it. Bring something
other than foot-stamping, shril, red-faced insistance that
"it can't be that way." Science will listen.
I worked for a prof with an alternate gravity theory. He got
published, regularly and frequently, in several different
physics journals. He got invited to conferences. He got atleast
one honourary degree conferred on him. How did he do that?
By understanding the issues involved, not simply spouting
about "my theory on gravity by Miss Anne Elk." If I would
go to him and say "John, I think you are mistaken here" then
we'd go to the blackboard and work out the answer. And if
he was wrong, he was as happy with me as if he was right,
because we had both learned something. I miss the beer
sessions we had.
And there's the important thing. The difference between a
guy with a weird idea and a kook is the kook is not willing
to learn. The kook is not prepared to go to the blackboard
and work out the right answer. He thinks he knows it without
the math, without the experimental data matching.
Socks
Marcel Luttgens
You are clumsily quibbling! After the y' axis has advanced the distance vt
during the time t, the origin of S' (your y') is at x = vt, according to S.
Einstein replaced x by vt in (2) t' = ex + ft in order to calculate f,
hence his f cannot be mathematically valid for other values of x.
Nevertheless, he replaced a by f, b by ec^2 and e by -fv/c^2
in his basic relations
(1) x' = ax + bt, and
(2) t' = ex + ft,
in order to obtain his LT
x' = f(x-vt) and
t' = f(t-xv/c^2), where f (or gamma, as you like) = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
And this is precisely why Einstein's LT are false.
As he used x = vt in his derivation, x must be replaced by vt in the LT,
which thus reduce to x' = 0, and t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
>
>
> Why are you soooo dense, Marcel?
Why are SRists soooo dense?
For instance, Dirk Van de moortel claimed that "the equation
t' = f(t-xv/c^2)
is valid for all events", even if its validity is logically and
mathematically limited to the events (x = vt, t) !
Do you understand what "valid for all events" means? Van de moortel once
claimed that the LT can even be used for values of x, that correspond to
speeds greater than the speed of light ! What have such x to do with
the advance of the frame S' ? In fact, SRists don't understand the
bases of their own theory.
Note that one gets exactly the same f by replacing e by -fv/c^2 in
(2) t' = ex + ft, thus obtaining the "time" LT t' = f(t - vx/c^2), then by
equating y' = ct' = cf(t - vx/c^2) to y = sqrt(c^2 - v^2) * t, thus getting
f(t - vx/c^2) = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) * t, and lastly *by replacing x by vt*,
thus finally obtaining f = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
Do you realize now that the so-called Lorentz transformation cannot
be valid for all events?
>
> Paul
Marcel Luttgens
Dirk Van de moortel
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:lkdpqus1alfedkrs0...@4ax.com...
Let me try to *tell* you something too, in case you might
be in the mood to actually listen for once.
My remark had nothing to do with conformism or accepting
or questioning or faith. It was not about physics and it was
not about science. My remark was about the psychological
phenomenon of masochism. Weren't you also a psychologist
before you became a geneticist, physicist, philosopher,
software engineer and technologist?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Marcel Luttgens" <mutt...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:b45b8808.02101...@posting.google.com...
[removed puke from carpet]
> Do you realize now that the so-called Lorentz transformation cannot
> be valid for all events?
From: Daryl McCullough (da...@cogentex.com)
Subject: For MLuttgens: LT apply for all events
Date: 2001-10-24 13:20:36 PS
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=9r769...@drn.newsguy.com
Dirk Vdm
Bilge
Re: Are all SRists soooo dense ? to usenet:
>And what makes the arch-conformist who accepts everything he reads
>without question and is prepared to die to protect his (often ailing)
>faith. Your 'crackpot' is the opposite of our 'self-delusionist'.
It's not an either/or choice between believing everything you read
and disbelieving everything you read just because you saw it that way
and concluded the latter was a more intellectual pursuit. Trying to
pidgeon hole your critics into the the other category so you can argue
that "crackpot" is a matter of perspective, neglects the fact that
your critics don't fall into either of your two categories.
HenriWilson
You must be new here. You have a lot to learn about this group's
'personalities'.
I agree that we true scientists do NOT normally behave as though we are
defending a faith. I was basically refering to the noncreative
indoctrinated SRians here who never utter one constructive word or attempt
to further the cause of science. Most of them have probably never set foot
in a research lab.
Their chief weapon is ridicule - but ask them something they can't look up
in a text and they will quickly sabotage the thread by deviating onto any
loosely related topic they think they know something about.
To my knowledge, only one or two SRians have ever tried to contribute
anything new to science. To them relativity IS a religion.
HenriWilson
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
And I played to my age at golf last week. That ain't easy. 2 under par 70.
Would you like to congratulate me.
>
>Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:fi4tquo3dfqg2jp8g...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> And I played to my age at golf last week. That ain't easy. 2 under par 70.
> Would you like to congratulate me.
I know you are a good golf player.
Everyone who has ever used google to look for the connection
between Henry Wilson and Ralph Rabbidge knows that.
Congratulations, well done.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:tq3tquo13nkr5nrlt...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> >And there's the important thing. The difference between a
> >guy with a weird idea and a kook is the kook is not willing
> >to learn. The kook is not prepared to go to the blackboard
> >and work out the right answer. He thinks he knows it without
> >the math, without the experimental data matching.
> >Socks
>
> You must be new here. You have a lot to learn about this group's
> 'personalities'.
> I agree that we true scientists do NOT normally behave as though we are
> defending a faith. I was basically refering to the noncreative
> indoctrinated SRians here who never utter one constructive word or attempt
> to further the cause of science. Most of them have probably never set foot
> in a research lab.
>
> Their chief weapon is ridicule - but ask them something they can't look up
> in a text and they will quickly sabotage the thread by deviating onto any
> loosely related topic they think they know something about.
> To my knowledge, only one or two SRians have ever tried to contribute
> anything new to science. To them relativity IS a religion.
I couldn't care less about relativity, you know. If it turns out to
be wrong, we would have something new to study. Perhaps
something far more challenging and interesting.
And ridiculing is not a weapon. It is fun watching some people
who *think* that relativity is a religion for whom they call the
"Relativists" or the "SRians", desperately and continually show
their utter ignorance about the theory *and* about the people
who understand and use it. The ridiculing is entirely self-inflicted.
Dirk Vdm
Marcel Luttgens
You belong to the brainwashed SR crackpots, who even reject
mathematical evidence.
You don't realize that step 4 of the Einstein derivation of his
so-called Lorentz transformation is mathematically equivalent to the
following procedure:
Replace e by -fv/c^2 in (2) t' = ex + ft, thus obtaining the "time" LT
t' = f(t - vx/c^2), then equate y' = ct' = cf(t - vx/c^2) to y =
sqrt(c^2 - v^2) * t,
thus getting (3) f(t - vx/c^2) = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) * t, and lastly
replace x by vt
in this last relation, thus finally obtaining f = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
If you don't realize that this value of f is only valid for x = vt,
then you
are a desperate case.
And if you are "puking" that in the LT
x' = f(x-vt) and
t' = f(t-xv/c^2),
there are two different variables x, the one in f being vt and the
other
one being anything, then you need a psy.
Of course, to everybody sane, there is only one variable x, whose
value corresponds to vt. Hence, one gets
x' = 0, and
t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2),
meaning that Einstein's transforms amount to a hoax.
Marcel Luttgens
Dirk Van de moortel
"Marcel Luttgens" <mutt...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:b45b8808.02101...@posting.google.com...
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<yqir9.165161$8o4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>...
> > "Marcel Luttgens" <mutt...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:b45b8808.02101...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > [removed puke from carpet]
> >
> > > Do you realize now that the so-called Lorentz transformation cannot
> > > be valid for all events?
> >
> > From: Daryl McCullough (da...@cogentex.com)
> > Subject: For MLuttgens: LT apply for all events
> > Date: 2001-10-24 13:20:36 PS
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=9r769...@drn.newsguy.com
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> You belong to the brainwashed SR crackpots
I just explained to Henry Wilson that I couldn't care
less about relativity.
Find the post.
Dirk Vdm
Patrick Reany
HenriWilson wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> >And there's the important thing. The difference between a
> >guy with a weird idea and a kook is the kook is not willing
> >to learn. The kook is not prepared to go to the blackboard
> >and work out the right answer. He thinks he knows it without
> >the math, without the experimental data matching.
> >Socks
>
> You must be new here. You have a lot to learn about this group's
> 'personalities'.
> I agree that we true scientists do NOT normally behave as though we are
> defending a faith. I was basically refering to the noncreative
> indoctrinated SRians here who never utter one constructive word or attempt
> to further the cause of science.
What is this "cause of science"?
Patrick
Robert Kolker
Patrick Reany wrote:
>
> What is this "cause of science"?
Beware of people who speak of "we True scientists".
Not to be confused with them False scientists.
Bob Kolker
ca314159
"That's one giant leap for a man, one small step for mankind."
- Billy Armstrong
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:tq3tquo13nkr5nrlt...@4ax.com...
Have you had a peek at the physics of the 20th century,
QM, QED, QCD, the Standard Model etc.,etc. ?
(I know you are stuck in the 19th century, but just a peek?)
Do you think there has been any novel ideas in the development
of those theories?
The people with all those novel ideas were all "SRians".
Can you name one - just one - 20th century physicist refuting
SR which have had a novel idea leading to a theory which
to at least a certain degree is confirmed and not is falsified?
Any idiot can have novel ideas leading to inconsistent
theories falsified before they are conceived.
And they do.
All the time.
The cranks in this NG have a number of things in common:
- They display an astonishing ignorance of elementary physics.
They call their ignorance "not being brainwashed".
They pride themselves with their ignorance, that's "having
an open mind". Any physicist who have actually learned physics
by reading books is per definition brainwashed and can therefore
never think for himself.
- They have no self criticism; they can claim what is obviously
wrong and it never occur to them that THEY might be wrong.
- They consider themselves the new Messiah of physics;
they have realized what nobody before them have thought of.
It never occur to them that in most cases the ideas aren't
even new, but the same obsolete ideas invented over and over
and over again.
- They invariably claim that what they don't understand must
be impossible.
- They consider any experiment confirming SR/GR as invalid
by some reason - like the data is fiddled, or it is an error
in the experimental set-up which only they have realized.
Only the - invariably unfeasible - experiment they self
have proposed would be a valid test of SR/GR.
You, Henry Wilson, fit the description of the typical crank perfectly.
One might even think you are the prototype. :-)
Paul
HenriWilson
thanks Dirk.
Yes Rabbo plays golf here too.
Marcel Luttgens
> "Marcel Luttgens" <mutt...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:b45b8808.02101...@posting.google.com...
> > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<yqir9.165161$8o4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>...
> > > "Marcel Luttgens" <mutt...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:b45b8808.02101...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > [removed puke from carpet]
> > >
> > > > Do you realize now that the so-called Lorentz transformation cannot
> > > > be valid for all events?
> > >
> > > From: Daryl McCullough (da...@cogentex.com)
> > > Subject: For MLuttgens: LT apply for all events
> > > Date: 2001-10-24 13:20:36 PS
> > > http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=9r769...@drn.newsguy.com
> > >
> > > Dirk Vdm
> >
> > You belong to the brainwashed SR crackpots
>
> I just explained to Henry Wilson that I couldn't care
> less about relativity.
> Find the post.
>
> Dirk Vdm
Is this your post?
"I couldn't care less about relativity, you know. If it turns out to
be wrong, we would have something new to study. Perhaps
something far more challenging and interesting.
And ridiculing is not a weapon. It is fun watching some people
who *think* that relativity is a religion for whom they call the
"Relativists" or the "SRians", desperately and continually show
their utter ignorance about the theory *and* about the people
who understand and use it. The ridiculing is entirely self-inflicted."
Who, aside from the "true SR believers", couldn't agree with the first part
of your post? Thank you, Henry Wilson !
But I don't understand why you don't comment upon my analysis:
" Step 4 of the Einstein derivation of his so-called Lorentz transformation
is mathematically equivalent to the following procedure:
Replace e by -fv/c^2 in (2) t' = ex + ft, thus obtaining the "time" LT
t' = f(t - vx/c^2), then equate y' = ct' = cf(t - vx/c^2) to
y = sqrt(c^2 - v^2) * t, thus getting
f(t - vx/c^2) = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) * t, and lastly replace x by vt
in this last relation, thus finally obtaining
f = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
This value of f is only valid for x = vt.
Otoh, in the LT
x' = (x-vt) / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) and
t' = (t-xv/c^2) / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2),
the variable x mathematically corresponds to vt.
Let's not forget that Einstein obtained f = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2),
by replacing x by vt in his basic relation (2) t' = ex + ft !
Hence,
x' = 0, and
t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2),
meaning that Einstein's transforms are false."
As a nice guy, you would have a triple choice:
1) Your analysis is mathematically wrong. Indeed ...
2) Your analyis is mathemtically correct, and disproves the LT.
3) Your analysis is mathematically correct, but doesn't disprove the LT,
because, in SR lingo, bla... bla... bla...
Marcel Luttgens
Dirk Van de moortel
I didn't comment because
http://groups.google.com/groups?sourceid=navclient&q=author%3Amoortel+%22basic+linear+algebra%22
Dirk Vdm
Marcel Luttgens
Then no need to comment, just tell us if my analysis is
*mathematically* right or wrong.
Marcel Luttens
Dirk Van de moortel
I see no reason why I would I tell you anything else than to
go and look where the answer is staring you right in the face
and from where you ran away in silence on every previous
occasion.
Here's another hint:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/MarcelAtSchool.gif
Dirk Vdm
Stephen Speicher
>
> "Marcel Luttgens" <mutt...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:b45b8808.02101...@posting.google.com...
> > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > http://groups.google.com/groups?sourceid=navclient&q=author%3Amoortel+%22basic+linear+algebra%22
> > >
> > > Dirk Vdm
> >
> > Then no need to comment, just tell us if my analysis is
> > *mathematically* right or wrong.
>
> I see no reason why I would I tell you anything else than to
> go and look where the answer is staring you right in the face
> and from where you ran away in silence on every previous
> occasion.
> Here's another hint:
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/MarcelAtSchool.gif
>
:) :)
Perfect.
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marcel Luttgens
"I couldn't care less about relativity, you know. If it turns out to
be wrong, we would have something new to study. Perhaps
Do you realize that he indirectly admitted that my analysis is
mathematically correct? He couldn't claim that it was wrong, because
it is mathematically equivalent to Einstein's derivation of his
so-called Lorentz transformation.
Do you remember that I told him:
" Step 4 of the Einstein derivation of his so-called Lorentz transformation
is mathematically equivalent to the following procedure:
Replace e by -fv/c^2 in (2) t' = ex + ft, thus obtaining the "time" LT
t' = f(t - vx/c^2), then equate y' = ct' = cf(t - vx/c^2) to
y = sqrt(c^2 - v^2) * t, thus getting
f(t - vx/c^2) = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) * t, and lastly replace x by vt
in this last relation, thus finally obtaining
f = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
This value of f is only valid for x = vt.
Otoh, in the LT
x' = (x-vt) / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) and
t' = (t-xv/c^2) / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2),
the variable x mathematically corresponds to vt.
Let's not forget that Einstein obtained f = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2),
by replacing x by vt in his basic relation (2) t' = ex + ft !
Hence,
x' = 0, and
t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2),
meaning that Einstein's transforms are false."
What is your response? Yelling "perfect" is not enough ! You should try to
demonstrate that the variable x in the LT is different from vt!
But you can't! Nobody sane could!
But, as a "True Believer", you are too dense to aknowledge the evidence,
which is
x' = (V-v)/(1-Vv/c^2) * t'
where V is the velocity of some object wrt the frame S, and v is the velocity
of the frame S' wrt the frame S, and
t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
Dirk also wrote, responding to Henry Wilson
"And ridiculing is not a weapon. It is fun watching some people
who *think* that relativity is a religion for whom they call the
"Relativists" or the "SRians", desperately and continually show
their utter ignorance about the theory *and* about the people
who understand and use it. The ridiculing is entirely self-inflicted."
Show us that you understand Einsteinian relativity, instead of hiding
behind Dirk and other SR crackpots. Don't ridicule yourself!
Marcel Luttgens
Stephen Speicher
>
> Show us that you understand Einsteinian relativity, instead of hiding
> behind Dirk and other SR crackpots. Don't ridicule yourself!
>
But, it is so much easier "hiding behind Dirk and other SR
crackpots." That way one does not have to think for oneself; just
follow the herd and say what they say, and do as they do.
Afterall, not everyone can be as independent a thinker as is
Marcel Luttgens, who has single-handedly demonstrated Einstein's
fundamental errors in regard to the Lorentz transformation, and
has reworked such into a much more meaningful and powerful
expression.
And, considering that this was done only on Tuesday and Friday
evenings between the hours of 7:30 - 8:30 pm (which is the time
that the inmates are given crayons to use for their artistic
expressions), this new corrected Lorentz transformation is all
the more surprising. Can you imagine what Marcel could accomplish
if the inmates were ever allowed to use a sharp object such as a
pencil -- today SR, tomorrow general relativity!
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.33.021020...@localhost.localdomain...
> On 20 Oct 2002, Marcel Luttgens wrote:
> >
> > Show us that you understand Einsteinian relativity, instead of hiding
> > behind Dirk and other SR crackpots. Don't ridicule yourself!
> >
>
> But, it is so much easier "hiding behind Dirk and other SR
> crackpots."
That line of Marcel's made me feel like the mouse running
alongside the elephant, when the ant exclaimed "Look at
the dust the two of them are making!"
Marcel can be so funny sometimes :-)
Dirk Vdm
Stephen Speicher
Good analogy.
> Marcel can be so funny sometimes :-)
>
Sometimes?
What I find amazing is that, he just keeps on coming. He ignores
the criticism and just repeats exactly where he was prior to
having been shown where he was wrong. He cannot be reached by any
rational means, and he continues to travel a straight line which
leads directly from, and to, delusion.
Bilge
Re: Are all SRists soooo dense ? to usenet:
>"I couldn't care less about relativity, you know. If it turns out to
>be wrong, we would have something new to study. Perhaps
>something far more challenging and interesting.", but not YOU.
>
>Do you realize that he indirectly admitted that my analysis is
>mathematically correct? He couldn't claim that it was wrong, because
>it is mathematically equivalent to Einstein's derivation of his
>so-called Lorentz transformation.
lorentz transforms, (rotations), to claim a coordinate transformation
that rotates an obect through an angle is bogus. How come? The argument
is identical to the one you applied to boosts.
Marcel Luttgens
> >
> > Show us that you understand Einsteinian relativity, instead of hiding
> > behind Dirk and other SR crackpots. Don't ridicule yourself!
> >
>
> But, it is so much easier "hiding behind Dirk and other SR
> crackpots." That way one does not have to think for oneself; just
> follow the herd and say what they say, and do as they do.
> Afterall, not everyone can be as independent a thinker as is
> Marcel Luttgens, who has single-handedly demonstrated Einstein's
> fundamental errors in regard to the Lorentz transformation, and
> has reworked such into a much more meaningful and powerful
> expression.
>
> And, considering that this was done only on Tuesday and Friday
> evenings between the hours of 7:30 - 8:30 pm (which is the time
> that the inmates are given crayons to use for their artistic
> expressions), this new corrected Lorentz transformation is all
> the more surprising. Can you imagine what Marcel could accomplish
> if the inmates were ever allowed to use a sharp object such as a
> pencil -- today SR, tomorrow general relativity!
Blah blah again. What do *you* have to tell about this simple
demonstration of Einstein's logical error ?
Replace e by -fv/c^2 in (2) t' = ex + ft, thus obtaining the "time" LT
t' = f(t - vx/c^2), then equate y' = ct' = cf(t - vx/c^2) to
y = sqrt(c^2 - v^2) * t, thus getting
f(t - vx/c^2) = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) * t
(Adapted from step 4 of Einstein's derivation).
For those SR crackpots who are too dense to grasp that x = vt :
From f(t - vx/c^2) = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) * t, simply isolate x,
thus getting
x = (c^2 * t / v) * (1 - sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) / f)
Now, replace f by 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
How do *you* show that x is different from vt ? By your customary blah blah ?
Marcel Luttgens
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.33.021020...@localhost.localdomain>...
> > On 20 Oct 2002, Marcel Luttgens wrote:
> > >
> > > Show us that you understand Einsteinian relativity, instead of hiding
> > > behind Dirk and other SR crackpots. Don't ridicule yourself!
> > >
> >
> > But, it is so much easier "hiding behind Dirk and other SR
> > crackpots." That way one does not have to think for oneself; just
> > follow the herd and say what they say, and do as they do.
> > Afterall, not everyone can be as independent a thinker as is
> > Marcel Luttgens, who has single-handedly demonstrated Einstein's
> > fundamental errors in regard to the Lorentz transformation, and
> > has reworked such into a much more meaningful and powerful
> > expression.
> >
> > And, considering that this was done only on Tuesday and Friday
> > evenings between the hours of 7:30 - 8:30 pm (which is the time
> > that the inmates are given crayons to use for their artistic
> > expressions), this new corrected Lorentz transformation is all
> > the more surprising. Can you imagine what Marcel could accomplish
> > if the inmates were ever allowed to use a sharp object such as a
> > pencil -- today SR, tomorrow general relativity!
>
> Blah blah again. What do *you* have to tell about this simple
> demonstration of Einstein's logical error ?
>
Basically, I don't think the inmates should be given internet
privileges, not even for the two 1/2 hour sessions you are
currently allocated each week. However, if the psychiatrists
really think it helps reduce your medication, then I believe you
should at least be restricted to the alt.* groups, rather than
bothering the grownups.
Marcel Luttgens
You have no response, all you can do is spouting silly blah blah.
Marcel Luttgens
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.33.021023...@localhost.localdomain>...
> >
> > Basically, I don't think the inmates should be given internet
> > privileges, not even for the two 1/2 hour sessions you are
> > currently allocated each week. However, if the psychiatrists
> > really think it helps reduce your medication, then I believe you
> > should at least be restricted to the alt.* groups, rather than
> > bothering the grownups.
>
> You have no response ...
>
Sure I do. You just do not like the response that you deserve.
You are impervious to reason and fact -- amongst others Dirk has
made a career of correcting your errors, which you persistently
evade -- and yet you audaciously smear those whom you lack the
ability to understand. Your mind has become incapacitated to
perform the function it should perform, and it is your own misuse
of your mental equipment which brought this about. That is as
severe a mental disease that could impair a human mind, and if
you are not really institutionalized, you should be.
Marcel Luttgens
> On 24 Oct 2002, Marcel Luttgens wrote:
>
> > Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.33.021023...@localhost.localdomain>...
> > >
> > > Basically, I don't think the inmates should be given internet
> > > privileges, not even for the two 1/2 hour sessions you are
> > > currently allocated each week. However, if the psychiatrists
> > > really think it helps reduce your medication, then I believe you
> > > should at least be restricted to the alt.* groups, rather than
> > > bothering the grownups.
> >
> > You have no response ...
> >
>
> Sure I do. You just do not like the response that you deserve.
> You are impervious to reason and fact -- amongst others Dirk has
> made a career of correcting your errors, which you persistently
> evade -- and yet you audaciously smear those whom you lack the
> ability to understand. Your mind has become incapacitated to
> perform the function it should perform, and it is your own misuse
> of your mental equipment which brought this about. That is as
> severe a mental disease that could impair a human mind, and if
> you are not really institutionalized, you should be.
Where is your response?
From f(t - vx/c^2) = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) * t, simply isolate x,
thus getting
x = (c^2 * t / v) * (1 - sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) / f)
Now, replace f by 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
How do *you* show that x is different from vt ? By your customary blah blah ?
You are not even dense!
Marcel Luttgens
Stephen Speicher
> Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.33.021024...@localhost.localdomain>...
> > On 24 Oct 2002, Marcel Luttgens wrote:
> >
> > > Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.33.021023...@localhost.localdomain>...
> > > >
> > > > Basically, I don't think the inmates should be given internet
> > > > privileges, not even for the two 1/2 hour sessions you are
> > > > currently allocated each week. However, if the psychiatrists
> > > > really think it helps reduce your medication, then I believe you
> > > > should at least be restricted to the alt.* groups, rather than
> > > > bothering the grownups.
> > >
> > > You have no response ...
> > >
> >
> > Sure I do. You just do not like the response that you deserve.
> > You are impervious to reason and fact -- amongst others Dirk has
> > made a career of correcting your errors, which you persistently
> > evade -- and yet you audaciously smear those whom you lack the
> > ability to understand. Your mind has become incapacitated to
> > perform the function it should perform, and it is your own misuse
> > of your mental equipment which brought this about. That is as
> > severe a mental disease that could impair a human mind, and if
> > you are not really institutionalized, you should be.
>
> Where is your response?
>
Oh, did you miss it? I'm sorry. Let me repeat it for you.
You are impervious to reason and fact -- amongst others Dirk has
made a career of correcting your errors, which you persistently
evade -- and yet you audaciously smear those whom you lack the
ability to understand. Your mind has become incapacitated to
perform the function it should perform, and it is your own misuse
of your mental equipment which brought this about. That is as
severe a mental disease that could impair a human mind, and if
you are not really institutionalized, you should be.
--
Marcel Luttgens
As SRians have shown themselves so impervious to elementary
reasoning, I present hereafter the simplest proof that the
so-called Lorentz transformation are wrong.
In the LT
x' = f(x - vt)
t' = f(t - vx/c^2),
where f = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2),
the variable x can take any imaginable value, according to SRians.
If this is not the case, the LT make of course no sense at all,
and SR, which is based on them, is false.
The "time" LT can take the form
t' = ft(1 - vx/tc^2). Then,
f = t' / t(1 - vx/tc^2), or
1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = t' / t(1 - vx/tc^2).
According to elementary algebra, this equality is only
possible if, and only if,
t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), and
x = vt.
Clearly, the only value that the variable x can take is vt,
hence the Lorentz transformation reduce to
x' = 0
t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
Iow, the LT are the consequence of a logical error, made by
Einstein, and endorsed by SRians since almost a century.
Marcel Luttgens
Dirk Van de moortel
"Marcel Luttgens" <mutt...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:b45b8808.02111...@posting.google.com...
> Re: Are all SRists soooo dense ?
>
> As SRians have shown themselves so impervious to elementary
> reasoning, I present hereafter the simplest proof that the
> so-called Lorentz transformation are wrong.
>
> In the LT
>
> x' = f(x - vt)
> t' = f(t - vx/c^2),
> where f = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2),
>
> the variable x can take any imaginable value, according to SRians.
> If this is not the case, the LT make of course no sense at all,
> and SR, which is based on them, is false.
>
> The "time" LT can take the form
> t' = ft(1 - vx/tc^2). Then,
> f = t' / t(1 - vx/tc^2), or
> 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = t' / t(1 - vx/tc^2).
>
> According to elementary algebra, this equality is only
> possible if, and only if,
> t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), and
> x = vt.
Not according to standard elementary algebra:
Your "if and only if" is wrong. That should be "If".
----------------------------------------------------
The following is true:
1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = t' / t(1 - vx/tc^2).
<==
{ t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
{ x = vt.
----------------------------------------------------
The following is false:
1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = t' / t(1 - vx/tc^2).
==>
{ t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
{ x = vt.
Here is a counter example for the second case:
take for example v=0.8c
and look at the event
{ t = 1
{ x = 600000000
find t' according to the LT, and check the three equations.
You will find
1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = t' / t(1 - vx/tc^2).
but
{ t' # t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
{ x # vt.
----------------------------------------------------
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Marcel Luttgens" <mutt...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:b45b8808.02111...@posting.google.com...
Taking into account:
- the incredibly elementary error you made,
- the incredible arrogance and pompousness of your conclusion,
- the incredible number of times this already has been explained,
this surely qualifies as a Fine Fat Flatulent Fumble:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#IfOnlyIf
Title: "if and only if" according to Elementary Luttgens Algebra
Dirk Vdm
Stephen Speicher
> Re: Are all SRists soooo dense ?
>
It's back ...
Lock up your women and children.
titanpoint
;-)
TP
Frank Wappler
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Marcel Luttgens wrote:
> > [...] In the LT
> > x' = f(x - vt)
> > t' = f(t - vx/c^2),
> > where f = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2),
... provided (v/c)^2 =/= 1, of course ...
> > the variable x can take any imaginable value [...]
That's any value of (signed, directed) _distance_
(which may be compared unambiguously to any other such value;
such as real numbers can be unambiguously compared to each other,
as opposed to pairs of imaginary numbers, or pairs of complex numbers).
> > The "time" LT can take the form
> > t' = ft(1 - vx/tc^2).
... only if t =/= 0 ...
> > Then, f = t' / t(1 - vx/tc^2), or
> > 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = t' / t(1 - vx/tc^2).
> > According to elementary algebra, this equality is only possible
> > if, and only if, t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), and x = vt.
> Not according to standard elementary algebra:
> Your "if and only if" is wrong. That should be "If". [...]
> The following is true:
> 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = t' / t(1 - vx/tc^2).
> <==
> { t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> { x = vt.
Again, that's true and AFAIK "standard elementary algebra" only with
the additional condition t =/= 0. Otherwise, without this condition,
it is true that
((t' = t * sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 )) and (x = vt)) ==>
(t (t - vx/c^2) = t t' sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 )).
Nevertheless, of course the inverse is false;
i.e. it is true that
(t (t - vx/c^2) = t t' sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 )) does_not_necessarily_imply
((t' = t * sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 )) and (x = vt));
as can be demonstrated for example by inserting the values
> v=0.8c [...]
together with
(t =/= 0), (x = 600000000 c t), and (t' = -479999999/0.6 t).
Frank W ~@) R
Dirk Van de moortel
"Frank Wappler" <fwap...@csc.albany.edu> wrote in message news:s4on0o9...@acunix1.albany.edu...
Frank, do you ever even *intend* to say something useful?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"titanpoint" <titan...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:utcui0q...@corp.supernews.com...
An SRian - aka SRist, aka Relativist - belongs to the class
of the most horrible creatures in the Universe And Great
Surroundings. At all cost must they be fought with every
possible and impossible, and I dare say with every imaginable
and unimaginable weapon, ranging from President Skin,
over Zero Division, to, and including, Telecaster Pickups.
Dirk Vdm
Marcel Luttgens
Yes, but "only if" didn't mean that there are no numerical values that
satisfy the equality 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = t' / t(1 - vx/tc^2).
Take the problem the other way, and try to find the expression for f
that
satisfy the relation t' / t(1 - vx/tc^2) = f.
As S' moves at v wrt S', we have t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), thus
sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) / (1 - vx/tc^2) = f.
Otoh, after a time t, the origin of S' will be at x = vt, according to
S.
By replacing x by vt in the above equality, one gets
sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) / (1 - v^2/c^2) = f, or
f = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), the famous gamma.
As f has been derived from x = vt, the Einsteinian LT
x' = f(x - vt)
t' = f(t - vx/c^2)
necessarily reduce to
x' = 0
t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
The conclusion is straightforward: the LT and gamma are nonsensical,
and SR is false.
The "soooo bright" SRists should go to
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/ , and click at
"Sapere Aude": Refutations of SR, by G. Walton.
Here are a few excerpts from his comprehensive debunking of SR
nonsense:
"One might have recognized that, for the explictly defined geometric
scenario, the LT and all formulae derived from it are
self-contradictory and
therefore unverifiable; the waste of resources on confirming or
refuting
the SR phantom is inexcusable."
"If we use the wrong figure, we easily overlook the mistake
responsible for the
paradoxical SR gamma ("Lorentz factor", g). Note that all SR effects
involve
the gamma; if it cancels in the kinematics, special relativity in its
entirety,
[...], is left without foundation."
"Observe that the displacement remains 'on' the x-axis; the t-axis,
whether
orthogonal or (as preferred by mathematical mystagogues) not
orthogonal, shows
merely the numerical ratio between x and t; using ct or ict for the
time axis
makes no difference. [...]
Once we start thinking about this we may laugh about worldlines
in the 4D function space of pure mathematics."
"Objections from physics and ontological considerations (e.g. nature
of space, time)
serve to distract attention from the scandal that the LT is not the
correct
solution of an utterly simple geometric problem."
"What of Einstein? In defence of pars 1 & 2 of the celebrated 1905
paper
R.B. Angel writes that Einstein cannot mean what he appears to be
saying.
Surely, if in doubt one turns to the mathematical exposition which
would
mercylessly expose any shoddy thinking. Friends (e.g. Fritz Stern) and
admirers (the 1967 BBC documentary) comment on Einstein's illogicality
and singular lack of the critical faculty. Jacques Barzun warns that
Einstein's fêting as genius exposes the entire scientific community to
contempt. Not surprisingly, the crucial pars 3-5 of the 1905 paper are
not only incoherent but grossly so; equally unsurprisingly, the genius
appears unaware that all supposedly dynamic effects would necessarily
be
reciprocal. (The much acclaimed 'deep' insight into the
frame-independence
of the laws of physics appears singularly feeble-minded. The
independence
had been guaranteed in classical physics by the 'Galilean' correction
for
the change of origin; it has been ABOLISHED in SR.) Why does one keep
mulling over Einstein's sayings?
One enters the 'debate' with dismay. The acceptance of the LT as
mathematically
valid, and the quality of existing objections, signal an incompetence
beyond belief.
The requisite 'algebra', intuitively tackled by every infant, is
summarized in
sufficient detail at the start of every maths textbook for engineers;
people
who have not mastered this elementary stage of common sense cognition
should
not be doing physics."
"Why should Einstein's expositions of special relativity merit
attention?
It is a common error, among admirers and critics alike, to assume that
this
is the case because the theory plays an important role, good or bad,
in modern physics. The real reason why they merit attention is that
they are early instances of 'mathemagics', namely the increasing
reliance
of modern physics on so-called counter-intuitive mathematical
operations.
The simple derivation is of particular importance, because its use of
simple
algebra allows insight into the grossly invalid symbolic usages which
have
become the norm in modern mathematical physics."
"The reaction of leading mathematicians is interesting. The majority
reassure
the critic that Einstein's reputed sophistication places his work
absolutely
beyond doubt, full stop. A minority base their well-meaning
explanations on
the conviction that protesters are half-wits in search of elementary
mathematical
enlightenment. A major hurdle is here the neglect of geometry, with
its important
but forgotten distinction between 3D and 4D. Without exception, the
outcome of
any such correspondence is silence, blacklisting, or ridicule in front
of a
public which takes Einstein's supposed genius for granted."
"To return to Bergmann's treatment: once the linear dependence of t'
on x and t
only has been set up, the fallacious LT is inevitable. Bearing in mind
that
Bergmann is blinded by mathematics, his derivation is nevertheless
noteworthy
because of its formal elegance. The absurdity is increased by the
fantastical
labour of the algebra needed to obtain a completely nonsensical
result."
"To conclude, had Bergman paid the slightest attention to the
geometric scenario,
his tortuous efforts would have been redundant, for all quantitative
correlations
had already been set up by explicit definition; this kind of doing
mathematics
is chasing its own tail. Clearly, in this kind of formal treatment the
distinction
between geometry and algebra is no longer understood. Since
mathematicians hold
that every really intelligent person becomes an outstanding
mathematician,
and that therefore people who are not even 'ordinary' professional
mathematicians
are to be classed as grossly subintelligent, we may leave it to the
mathematical
profession whether it values such distinctions. For physics, the
distinction
is vital because all measurement operations are necessarily
geometrical."
"Because of the foundational role of the 'space-time' analysis,
special relativity
(keyword anti-relativity) is here prominent as an example of cognitive
failure.
I do not list alternatives which typically ignore the mathematical
origin of problems.
There is unfortunately a great dearth of material critical of the
epistemological
foundations of physics as the quantitative inquiry into causes.
(N.B.: The blind acceptance of paradoxical mathematical conclusions is
a symptom of, at best, an authoritarian culture, and at worst, the
blatant
worship of unreason: 'truths that transcend the human intelligence'.
sapere aude!
dare to think!)."
"Note that the supposed problems arise solely because of the failure
to pay
attention to the essential distinction between variables used to
denote,
on the one hand, numbers, and, on the other, vector components. For
the case
as intended in physics (displacements referred to coordinate systems
in
relative motion), the SR solution is risibly false. Arguments that
ignore
this scandal are not only pointless but miss a historically unique
opportunity
to confront the problem of blind trust in mathematics."
Marcel Luttgens
Dirk Van de moortel
"Marcel Luttgens" <mutt...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:b45b8808.02112...@posting.google.com...
If and only if means "==>" and "<==" together and that
is final.
> Take the problem the other way, and try to find the expression for f
> that
> satisfy the relation t' / t(1 - vx/tc^2) = f.
> As S' moves at v wrt S'
typo: S
> , we have t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), thus
> sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) / (1 - vx/tc^2) = f.
> Otoh, after a time t, the origin of S' will be at x = vt, according to
> S.
> By replacing x by vt in the above equality, one gets
> sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) / (1 - v^2/c^2) = f,
which is, since you replaced x with vt in the LT, an equation
that is valid for all events that satisfy
x = vt.
> or
> f = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), the famous gamma.
> As f has been derived from x = vt, the Einsteinian LT
> x' = f(x - vt)
> t' = f(t - vx/c^2)
> necessarily reduce to
> x' = 0
> t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
valid for all events that satisfy the equation
x = vt
i.o.w. for all the events taking place on the observer S'
himself or on his y'-z'-plane - i.o.w. where x'=0.
For all these events the equations
x' = 0
t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
are valid.
You transformed the coordinates of a special class of events
according to the transformation. Bravo.
I think this must be the 23rd time this is explained to you.
By the way, have you counted how many times it took to
explain to you that f*(1-v^2/c^2) = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in
the first place?
Again, you have effectively said that
x + y = 10
if and only if
x = 6 and x = 4.
That might be possible in Elementary Luttgebra.
It is wrong in Elementary Algebra.
> The conclusion is straightforward: the LT and gamma are nonsensical,
> and SR is false.
The conclusion is straightforward: stay away from algebra: you
are not smart enough for it. The other morons have understood
that: they *know* that they can't do it so they don't try it. They
are effectively smarter than you:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/MarcelAtSchool.gif
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
> x = 6 and x = 4.
typo:
x = 6 and y = 4.
Dirk Vdm
Marcel Luttgens
As always, you are quibbling. One needs to find general algebraical
relations, not specific values of v (there are only two of them, i.e.
v=0.6 c and v=0.8 c !), that satisfy the equality
1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = t' / t(1 - vx/tc^2).
Those relations are t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) and x = vt.
Conclusively, the LT reduce to x' = 0, t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
There is no other general solution.
If you are still not convinced of the falseness of SR, go to
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/ , and click at
"Sapere Aude": Refutations of SR, by G. Walton.
But, as a brainwashed SR crackpot, you will no even realize that,
"Not surprisingly, the crucial pars 3-5 of the 1905 paper are
not only incoherent but grossly so; equally unsurprisingly, the genius
appears unaware that all supposedly dynamic effects would necessarily be
reciprocal"
>Dirk Vdm
Marcel Luttgens
Kevin Aylward
And you seriously believe that *all* PhD mathematicians that have looked
at this, for the last 100 years, have been so daft to not see such an
obvious "error".
Look, matey, if SR was incorrect, it wouldn't for something as trivial
as this. You to stand back from this a bit and see the bigger picture.
Kevin Aylward
sa...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Arfur Dogfrey
THE General Algebraic Relation (GAR) is, and can only be,
t' = t * [(1 - 2v^2/c^2)/Sqrt[1 - v^2/c^2] and x = 2vt
Now some people think that the GAR is
t' = t * [(1 - 3v^2/c^2)/Sqrt[1 - v^2/c^2] and x = 3vt
They are fooled by the fact that the algebra seems consistent but
those of us with superior understanding easily see through their
error.
Arf!
Arfur.
Arf!
Arfur
Dirk Van de moortel
You are a malicious idiot and we all know it.
Even you know it.
You have just provided mathematical proof of
it. And *that* you do *not* know. Moron.
Dirk Vdm
Marcel Luttgens
Give your own *general* solution instead of calling names.
Btw, you seem to be another "genius who appears unaware that all
supposedly dynamic effects are necessarily reciprocal in SR."
The LT x' = f(x-vt) and t' = f(t-vx/c^2) have been derived by
first stating that the frame S' moves at v wrt the frame S.
Note that the inverse LT are x = f(x'+vt') and t = f(t'+vx'/c^2),
where f is 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
But, according to SR, one can as well consider that the frame S
is moving at v wrt the frame S'. Then, by following Einstein's
derivation of the LT, one gets
x = f(x'-vt') and t = f(t'-vx'/c^2).
Thus,
x = f(x'+vt') = f(x'-vt')
t = f(t'+vx'/c^2) = f(t'-vx'/c^2),
which is only possible if v = -v, i.e. if v = 0 !
Poor moronic SR geniuses !
Marcel Luttgens
Dirk Van de moortel
"Marcel Luttgens" <mutt...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:b45b8808.02112...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
> Give your own *general* solution instead of calling names.
>
> Btw, you seem to be another "genius who appears unaware that all
> supposedly dynamic effects are necessarily reciprocal in SR."
> The LT x' = f(x-vt) and t' = f(t-vx/c^2) have been derived by
> first stating that the frame S' moves at v wrt the frame S.
> Note that the inverse LT are x = f(x'+vt') and t = f(t'+vx'/c^2),
> where f is 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
> But, according to SR, one can as well consider that the frame S
> is moving at v wrt the frame S'.
Moving at -v.
S' moving at v in positive x/x'-direction wrt S is expressed by:
{ x' = g(x-vt)
{ t' = g(t-vx/c^2)
{ g=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
which is algebraically equivalent with:
{ x = g(x'+vt')
{ t = g(t'+vx'/c^2),
{ g =1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
which is algebraically equivalent with:
{ x = g(x'-(-v)t')
{ t = g(t'-(-v)x'/c^2),
{ g =1/sqrt(1-(-v)^2/c^2).
which physically expresses that:
S is moving at (-v) in positive x/x'-direction wrt S', or
S is moving at v in negative x/x'-direction wrt S'.
> Then, by following Einstein's
> derivation of the LT, one gets
> x = f(x'-vt') and t = f(t'-vx'/c^2).
> Thus,
> x = f(x'+vt') = f(x'-vt')
> t = f(t'+vx'/c^2) = f(t'-vx'/c^2),
> which is only possible if v = -v, i.e. if v = 0 !
>
> Poor moronic SR geniuses !
>
> Marcel Luttgens
Replace every occurrence of "Archie-Poo" with "Marcel Luttgens"
in http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalGems.html#Stoopid
and find a mirror.
Dirk Vdm
Paul B. Andersen
"Marcel Luttgens" <mutt...@wanadoo.fr> wrote news:b45b8808.02112...@posting.google.com...
> The LT x' = f(x-vt) and t' = f(t-vx/c^2) have been derived by
> first stating that the frame S' moves at v wrt the frame S.
> Note that the inverse LT are x = f(x'+vt') and t = f(t'+vx'/c^2),
> where f is 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
> But, according to SR, one can as well consider that the frame S
> is moving at v wrt the frame S'. Then, by following Einstein's
> derivation of the LT, one gets
> x = f(x'-vt') and t = f(t'-vx'/c^2).
> Thus,
> x = f(x'+vt') = f(x'-vt')
> t = f(t'+vx'/c^2) = f(t'-vx'/c^2),
> which is only possible if v = -v, i.e. if v = 0 !
>
> Poor moronic SR geniuses !
>
> Marcel Luttgens
Hey, Marcel. This is plagiarism.
This beautiful proof of the inconsistency of the LT
was invented by the genius Androcles a long time ago.
You are in good company, Marcel! :-)
Paul
Dirk Van de moortel
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:aru8m4$o95$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
Really? I don't think I ever saw Androcles do this one.
I do have a few nice ones though:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#AndersonLogic
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#SqrtAnswers
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#PartialDiff
Dirk Vdm
Jeff Krimmel
"Marcel Luttgens" <mutt...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:b45b8808.02112...@posting.google.com...
>
> Btw, you seem to be another "genius who appears unaware that all
> supposedly dynamic effects are necessarily reciprocal in SR."
> The LT x' = f(x-vt) and t' = f(t-vx/c^2) have been derived by
> first stating that the frame S' moves at v wrt the frame S.
> Note that the inverse LT are x = f(x'+vt') and t = f(t'+vx'/c^2),
> where f is 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
> But, according to SR, one can as well consider that the frame S
> is moving at v wrt the frame S'. Then, by following Einstein's
> derivation of the LT, one gets
> x = f(x'-vt') and t = f(t'-vx'/c^2).
> Thus,
> x = f(x'+vt') = f(x'-vt')
> t = f(t'+vx'/c^2) = f(t'-vx'/c^2),
> which is only possible if v = -v, i.e. if v = 0 !
>
> Poor moronic SR geniuses !
>
> Marcel Luttgens
Marcel,
I very much enjoyed reading this pompous post from yourself. My favorite
part was the elementary arithmetic error you made that exposes your
overwhelming mathematical ignorance. Okay, let's take a look at what you
wrote:
"The LT x' = f(x-vt) and t' = f(t-vx/c^2) have been derived by first stating
that the frame S' moves at v wrt the frame S."
This seems reasonable. We're looking at the case where S' moves at v with
respect to frame S. Great. Now:
"But, according to SR, one can as well consider that the frame S is moving
at v wrt the frame S'."
Doh! If S' moves at v with respect to frame S above, then to continue
evaluating the same conditions, we would need to assume that frame S is
moving at -v with respect to frame S'. You see, there's a principle called
symmetry, and this symmetry is one of the many foundations of the branch of
science known as physics. If one frame (S') is traveling at velocity v
(i.e., a speed of v in the positive x direction) with respect to another
frame (S), then we can in turn say frame S is traveling at velocity -v
(i.e., a speed of v in the negative x direction) with respect to S'. If we
account for this elementary error in your original calculations, then you
see that v = -v for all velocities, and everything is again settled.
Now, Marcel, I strongly recommend you go lie down after reading this. It may
take a little while to soak in, but you'll come around. I especially like
the quip about "Poor moronic SR geniuses"...what a nice touch for a post
that contains such an elementary mathematical error.
I love this newsgroup! Entertainment for free every day of every week.
Regards,
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dirk Van de moortel
"Jeff Krimmel" <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3de2...@post.usenet.com...
You ain't seen nothin yet:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:moortel+marcel+OR+luttgens
A hobby of mine :-)
Enjoy!
Dirk Vdm
Jeff Krimmel
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:o9yE9.20472$Ti2....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
>
> "Jeff Krimmel" <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3de2...@post.usenet.com...
> > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> >
> > Now, Marcel, I strongly recommend you go lie down after reading this. It
may
> > take a little while to soak in, but you'll come around. I especially
like
> > the quip about "Poor moronic SR geniuses"...what a nice touch for a post
> > that contains such an elementary mathematical error.
> >
> > I love this newsgroup! Entertainment for free every day of every week.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jeff
>
> You ain't seen nothin yet:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:moortel+marcel+OR+luttgens
> A hobby of mine :-)
> Enjoy!
>
> Dirk Vdm
Haha! My favorite so far is this one:
>>
No, Marcel is convinced that the laws of physics are not the same
for two observers, neither of which is feeling any acceleration.
He also is convinced that the speed of light is not the same for
all such observers. In order to remain convinced he has to reject
100 years of evidence. And he also has to make many (poorly
hidden) mathematical errors.
Regards,
Dirk Vdm
<<
I guess I am not the first one to happen upon one of Marcel's many "poorly
hidden" mathematical errors. That phrase, "poorly hidden", might be slightly
misleading, though, because it implies that Marcel is purposefully trying to
disguise his mathematics as legitimate when he in fact knows they are not.
After reading a few of his posts, I am whole-heartedly certain that Marcel
is as stupid as his illogical rants suggest. I don't know if I would go so
far as the immortal gem description on your website, but Marcel is making a
run for it, that's for sure.
Arfur Dogfrey
I gave TWO "general" solutions. And if you follow the pattern you will
see that it gives an infinite family of general solutions. I also noticed
that you didn't respond to my post that gave the two counterexamples
to your claim.
Furthermore I'll make you an offer. If you can provide a valid, airtight
mathematical proof that
1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = t' / t(1 - vx/tc^2).
implies
t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) and x = vt.
then I will send you a check for $500 (US).
So there you have it. Nothing to lose on your part. You don't have to
risk a cent. If you are correct then you get an easy $500 in addition
to the satisfaction of getting the best of a "moronic SR genius." Let's
see, today is Tuesday, November 26. I'll count the days until you take
up the challenge.
Arf!
Arfur
> Marcel Luttgens
Dirk Van de moortel
"Arfur Dogfrey" <dogs...@dog.com> wrote in message news:b8a07d3f.02112...@posting.google.com...
> mutt...@wanadoo.fr (Marcel Luttgens) wrote in message news:<b45b8808.02112...@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
> > Poor moronic SR geniuses !
> >
>
> I gave TWO "general" solutions. And if you follow the pattern you will
> see that it gives an infinite family of general solutions. I also noticed
> that you didn't respond to my post that gave the two counterexamples
> to your claim.
>
> Furthermore I'll make you an offer. If you can provide a valid, airtight
> mathematical proof that
>
> 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = t' / t(1 - vx/tc^2).
>
> implies
>
> t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) and x = vt.
>
> then I will send you a check for $500 (US).
I'll top that with 500 euro.
>
> So there you have it. Nothing to lose on your part. You don't have to
> risk a cent. If you are correct then you get an easy $500 in addition
> to the satisfaction of getting the best of a "moronic SR genius." Let's
> see, today is Tuesday, November 26. I'll count the days until you take
> up the challenge.
>
> Arf!
"The poodle bites!
The poodle chews it!"
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Jeff Krimmel" <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3de2ae0d$1...@post.usenet.com...
hehe... he perfectly knows that he is as dumb as he looks.
Perhaps even dumber. There is not other way: He Knows.
Since he has over-invested in his dumbness, there clearly is
No Way Back.
> After reading a few of his posts, I am whole-heartedly certain that Marcel
> is as stupid as his illogical rants suggest. I don't know if I would go so
> far as the immortal gem description on your website, but Marcel is making a
> run for it, that's for sure.
Trust me: Luttgens is a troll - a very malicious *and* dumb,
but extremely entertaining one :-)
Enjoy!
Dirk Vdm
HenriWilson
Your argument perfectly illustrates that SR is just a variation on an
aether theme. You are assuming there is an absolute direction for 'an x
axis'.
You poor silly SRians cannot see that as far as a remote observer is
concerned, the convention for naming relative velocity as '+' or ' -'
depends solely on whether the observed object is approaching or moving
away.
If two observers are are in relative motion, then obviously they both must
use the same sign for 'v' when describing the other's velocity. (Unless
there is an absolute spatial reference - and we all agree that there isn't)
Marcel is right on this one and SR is ridiculed and refuted.
>
>Now, Marcel, I strongly recommend you go lie down after reading this. It may
>take a little while to soak in, but you'll come around. I especially like
>the quip about "Poor moronic SR geniuses"...what a nice touch for a post
>that contains such an elementary mathematical error.
>
>I love this newsgroup! Entertainment for free every day of every week.
It teaches one about the power of indoctrination.
>
>Regards,
>
>Jeff
Henri Wilson.
Technologist.
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
Stephen Speicher
> mutt...@wanadoo.fr (Marcel Luttgens) wrote in message news:<b45b8808.02112...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > Poor moronic SR geniuses !
> >
>
> I gave TWO "general" solutions. And if you follow the pattern you will
> see that it gives an infinite family of general solutions. I also noticed
> that you didn't respond to my post that gave the two counterexamples
> to your claim.
>
> Furthermore I'll make you an offer. If you can provide a valid, airtight
> mathematical proof that
>
> 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = t' / t(1 - vx/tc^2).
>
> implies
>
> t' = t * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) and x = vt.
>
> then I will send you a check for $500 (US).
>
> So there you have it. Nothing to lose on your part. You don't have to
> risk a cent. If you are correct then you get an easy $500 in addition
> to the satisfaction of getting the best of a "moronic SR genius." Let's
> see, today is Tuesday, November 26. I'll count the days until you take
> up the challenge.
>
The problem is, you did not specify who would judge whether or
not Marcel actually provides a "valid, airtight mathematical
proof." In the World of Marcel, a "mathematical proof" is
whatever he feels it to be, since Marcel is not bound by the same
standards as are lesser human beings. So without Marcel's
agreement on a judge, everything remains status quo, i.e.,
Marcel's fantasies will continue to be ridiculed by those who
know better than he, and he will remain at the bottom of the Pit
of Ignorance, oblivious to the real world around him.
p.s. Also, whenever you suggest a bet with a crackpot, make sure
you specify what he must give up if he loses. A good way to get
rid of a crackpot.
Dirk Van de moortel
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:mko7uukr5diji15r8...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> Your argument perfectly illustrates that SR is just a variation on an
> aether theme. You are assuming there is an absolute direction for 'an x
> axis'.
Friendly but urgent warning to Jeff:
You Do Not Want To Argue With This One.
Trust me.
Dirk Vdm
HenriWilson
Y'er too scared!
Dirk Van de moortel
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:i1dauuo341lo7qooh...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 07:51:43 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:mko7uukr5diji15r8...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:09:44 -0600, "Jeff Krimmel"
> >> <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> Your argument perfectly illustrates that SR is just a variation on an
> >> aether theme. You are assuming there is an absolute direction for 'an x
> >> axis'.
> >
> >Friendly but urgent warning to Jeff:
> > You Do Not Want To Argue With This One.
> >Trust me.
> >
> >Dirk Vdm
> >
> Y'er too scared!
Not scared. A bit nasty, that's all.
Besides, there's always (among many many many other):
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#LogicBull
Cozy :-)
Dirk Vdm
HenriWilson
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:i1dauuo341lo7qooh...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 07:51:43 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:mko7uukr5diji15r8...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:09:44 -0600, "Jeff Krimmel"
>> >> <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >> Your argument perfectly illustrates that SR is just a variation on an
>> >> aether theme. You are assuming there is an absolute direction for 'an x
>> >> axis'.
>> >
>> >Friendly but urgent warning to Jeff:
>> > You Do Not Want To Argue With This One.
>> >Trust me.
>> >
>> >Dirk Vdm
>> >
>> Y'er too scared!
>
>Not scared. A bit nasty, that's all.
>Besides, there's always (among many many many other):
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#LogicBull
>Cozy :-)
>
>Dirk Vdm
>
But you haven't disagreed with what I just stated in my above message.
Paul B. Andersen
find it blatantly obvious that a co-ordinate transform equation
between two frames of reference MUST depend on how the co-ordinate
systems and their relative motion are defined.
This definition is rather arbitrary, it is just a matter of convention.
A few variants:
Case #1: (The convention used by Einstein)
--------
x and x' axes pointing in same direction,
S' moving in positive x direction
S' ------|------->x' ->v
S ------|------->x
The Lorentz transform:
x' = gamma(x - vt)
t' = gamma(t - xv/c^2)
x = gamma(x'+ vt')
t = gamma(t'+ x'v/c^2)
The Galilean transform:
x' = x - vt
t' = t
x = x' + vt'
t = t'
Case #2:
--------
x and x' axes pointing in same direction,
S' moving in negative x direction
S' ------|------->x' v <-
S ------|------->x
The Lorentz transform:
x' = gamma(x + vt)
t' = gamma(t + xv/c^2)
x = gamma(x'- vt')
t = gamma(t'- x'v/c^2)
The Galilean transform:
x' = x + vt
t' = t
x = x'- vt'
t = t'
Case #3:
--------
x and x' axes pointing in opposite direction,
S' moving in positive x direction
S' x'<------|------- -> v
S ------|------->x
The Lorentz transform:
x' = gamma(-x + vt)
t' = gamma(t - vx/c^2)
x = gamma(-x' + vt')
t = gamma(t' - vx'/c^2)
The Galilean transform:
x' = -x + vt
t' = t
x = -x'+ vt'
t = t'
Case #4:
--------
x and x' axes pointing in opposite direction,
S' moving in negative x direction
S' x'<------|------- v <-
S ------|------->x
The Lorents transform:
x' = gamma(-x - vt)
t' = gamma(t + vx/c^2)
x = gamma(-x' - vt')
t = gamma(t' + vx'/c^2)
The Galilean transform:
x' = -x - vt
t' = t
x = -x'- vt'
t = t'
I am confident that any moderately intelligent person
find the above rather obvious.
But that does NOT mean that everybody find it obvious:
"HenriWilson" wrote:
> Your argument perfectly illustrates that SR is just a variation on an
> aether theme. You are assuming there is an absolute direction for 'an x
> axis'.
>
> You poor silly SRians cannot see that as far as a remote observer is
> concerned, the convention for naming relative velocity as '+' or ' -'
> depends solely on whether the observed object is approaching or moving
> away.
Why are you talking about "remote observers" and "moving objects"?
The issue is the Lorentz transform - a co-ordinate transform
between two specific frames of reference (called S and S' by Marcel),
moving relative to each other in a specific, defined way.
Don't you think that the sign of the relative velocity between
these frames depend on the actual chosen definition, rather than
whether some mysterious object is approaching an equally mysterious
observer?
> If two observers are are in relative motion, then obviously they both must
> use the same sign for 'v' when describing the other's velocity. (Unless
> there is an absolute spatial reference - and we all agree that there isn't)
So if we DEFINE two relatively moving frames of reference thus:
S' ------|------->x' ->v
S ------|------->x
Then, since S' is moving with the positive speed dx/dt = v in S,
S must obviously(sic) be moving with the positive speed dx'/dt' = v in S',
unless there is an absolute spatial reference.
Is THAT what you are saying?
Or are you saying that we are not allowed to define
relatively moving frames of reference like above?
Or what ARE you saying?
> Marcel is right on this one and SR is ridiculed and refuted.
Ah. I see.
So when Marcel says that when you let S move in the positive x' direction
in stead of letting S' move in the positive x direction, the fact
that the Lorentz transform equation changes prove it inconsistent,
- then you agree with him.
This proof applies obviously equally well to the Galilean transform:
When S move relative to S' with the speed v, we have: x' = x - vt
When S' move relative to S with the speed v, we have: x = x' + vt
which is only possible if v = -v, i.e. if v = 0 !
So we can conclude:
Henry Wilson states that the fact that the Lorentz transform
and the Galilean transform changes when the direction of relative
motion of S and S' changes prove both transforms self contradictory.
Right, Henry? :-)
Paul, amused
HenriWilson
It really IS quite laughable. You SRians keep resorting to Aetherian
arguments. Do you actually believe there is set of absolute spatial axes
that remote travellers can refer to.
If there are only two observers in the whole universe, what use would an
axis labelling convention be?
The only observation of importance to either observer would be whether the
other was approaching or departing. They would both use the same sign for v
in any transform relating to the other's frame.
There isn't a third observer at rest in absolute space who can draw
diagrams like you or I can on our screens.
Dirk Van de moortel
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:u3vguuom7d5ulah1l...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> >This proof applies obviously equally well to the Galilean transform:
> >When S move relative to S' with the speed v, we have: x' = x - vt
> >When S' move relative to S with the speed v, we have: x = x' + vt
> >which is only possible if v = -v, i.e. if v = 0 !
> >
> >So we can conclude:
> >Henry Wilson states that the fact that the Lorentz transform
> >and the Galilean transform changes when the direction of relative
> >motion of S and S' changes prove both transforms self contradictory.
> >
> >Right, Henry? :-)
> >
> >Paul, amused
>
> It really IS quite laughable. You SRians keep resorting to Aetherian
> arguments.
huh?
> Do you actually believe there is set of absolute spatial axes
> that remote travellers can refer to.
heh?
>
> If there are only two observers in the whole universe, what use would an
> axis labelling convention be?
oh.
>
> The only observation of importance to either observer would be whether the
> other was approaching or departing. They would both use the same sign for v
> in any transform relating to the other's frame.
hehe.
>
> There isn't a third observer at rest in absolute space who can draw
> diagrams like you or I can on our screens.
GASP!
Dirk Vdm
HenriWilson
and well you might.
>
>Dirk Vdm
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:u3vguuom7d5ulah1l...@4ax.com...
Well, Henry.
After all these postings, you are still able to shock me.
I knew you were confused about a lot of things,
but not to the extent this posting of yours reveals.
Henry Wilson don't even know what a frame of reference is!
According to Henry Wilson defining a frame of reference with
a co-ordinate system implies that:
"... there is a set of absolute
spatial axes that remote travellers can refer to."
Amazing! Unbeleavable!
Sometimes you even outdo Ken Seto, Henry.
With margin!
Paul
HenriWilson
<paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
Paul You have completely misrepresented me in a most mischievous way.
It is you people who believe in absolute axes, not I.
I repeat, there are only two observers A and B, in the universe. Nothing
else. They are in radio communication. They are approaching each other.
One says to the other, "by convention, velocity is negative in the
direction of approach".
Both would say the other had a negative velocity. Both would agree that the
distance between them was becoming shorter at the rate -v.
Alternatively, if A said to B, "by convention, call MY frame the rest frame
and let velocity be positive in the direction of your approach towards me",
B would then simply regard A as having zero velocity, a meaningless
concept.
Knowing that A would attribute him with a positive velocity, B would not be
able to do the opposite for A because then HIS equation for the change in
distance between them would be different from A's and since there was no
absolute direction, there was no way this could be justified. Both MUST use
the same equation.
As far as BOTH are concerned, velocity in this context has magnitude but no
direction. Both regard the distance between them as shortening by PLUS v.
I must congratulate Marcel for being the first to point this out.
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote
news:r67muugf7el9pl5at...@4ax.com...> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote
news:u3vguuom7d5ulah1l...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 22:22:12 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> >> <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
In other words, you are claiming that the only convention
they could use is my "case 4".
> Alternatively, if A said to B, "by convention, call MY frame the rest frame
> and let velocity be positive in the direction of your approach towards me",
> B would then simply regard A as having zero velocity, a meaningless
> concept.
Henry, Henry! :-)
You are babbling.
And so are A, when he says to B:
"by convention, call my rest frame your rest frame",
You sure have a lot of weird ideas, Henry! :-)
> Knowing that A would attribute him with a positive velocity, B would not be
> able to do the opposite for A because then HIS equation for the change in
> distance between them would be different from A's and since there was no
> absolute direction, there was no way this could be justified. Both MUST use
> the same equation.
You are talking nonsense, Henry.
There is obviously no reason why A and B couldn't agree to
use any of the conventions 1 - 4 in my example.
In all my examples the x and x' axes are pointing along
their relative velocity. And of course they may agree to
let their x and x' axes point in the opposite direction,
OR in the same direction. What should be the problem
with that? And if they choose to let their x-axes point
in the same direction why should this free choice make
the selected direction absolute?
The simple point you seem to have missed completely is that
it doesn't matter which convention they use,
as long as they use the transform equation belonging to
-------------------------------------------------------
the chosen convention.
---------------------
So if you insist on using the convention in my "case 4",
by all means, do that.
But use the transform equation that goes along with it.
So what's your problem?
> As far as BOTH are concerned, velocity in this context has magnitude but no
> direction. Both regard the distance between them as shortening by PLUS v.
And since the speed has magnitude and no direction,
the speed MUST be negative? :-)
Isn't a negative speed a speed in the opposite direction,
which it doesn't have? :-)
Why don't you advocate the selection my "case 3" in stead, Henry?
> I must congratulate Marcel for being the first to point this out.
Marcel insisted that the fact that the transform equation changes
when you change the choice of co-ordinate systems from my "case 1"
to my "case 2" prove that the Lorentz transform is inconsistent.
That "prrof" would't apply only to the LT, of course,
but to ANY co-ordinate transform, including the Galilean transform.
And Marcel isn't the first to point out this incredible idiocy.
So far I have seen three people do it:
Androcles, Marcel Luttgens and Henry Wilson.
Concratulation, Henry.
Being third to discover that all co-ordinate transforms are
self contradictory isn't bad.
Or is it? :-)
Read the following carefully, Henry.
Is there anything particular you don't understand?
If the LT is to much to you, consentrate on the Galilean transform.
Do you claim that the following prove that the Galilean transform
is inconsistent?
Make my day, Henry. Do!
One would expect that any moderately intelligent person would
find it blatantly obvious that a co-ordinate transform equation
between two frames of reference MUST depend on how the co-ordinate
systems and their relative motion are defined.
This definition is rather arbitrary, it is just a matter of convention.
A few variants:
Case #1: (The convention used by Einstein)
--------
x and x' axes pointing in same direction,
S' moving in positive x direction
S moving in negative x' direction
S' ------|------->x' ->v
S ------|------->x
The Lorentz transform:
x' = gamma(x - vt)
t' = gamma(t - xv/c^2)
x = gamma(x'+ vt')
t = gamma(t'+ x'v/c^2)
The Galilean transform:
x' = x - vt
t' = t
x = x' + vt'
t = t'
Case #2:
--------
x and x' axes pointing in same direction,
S' moving in negative x direction
S moving in positive x' direction
S' ------|------->x' v <-
S ------|------->x
The Lorentz transform:
x' = gamma(x + vt)
t' = gamma(t + xv/c^2)
x = gamma(x'- vt')
t = gamma(t'- x'v/c^2)
The Galilean transform:
x' = x + vt
t' = t
x = x'- vt'
t = t'
Case #3:
--------
x and x' axes pointing in opposite direction,
S' moving in positive x direction
S moving in positive x' direction
S' x'<------|------- -> v
S ------|------->x
The Lorentz transform:
x' = gamma(-x + vt)
t' = gamma(t - vx/c^2)
x = gamma(-x' + vt')
t = gamma(t' - vx'/c^2)
The Galilean transform:
x' = -x + vt
t' = t
x = -x'+ vt'
t = t'
Case #4:
--------
x and x' axes pointing in opposite direction,
S' moving in negative x direction
S moving in negative x' direction
S' x'<------|------- v <-
S ------|------->x
The Lorents transform:
x' = gamma(-x - vt)
t' = gamma(t + vx/c^2)
x = gamma(-x' - vt')
t = gamma(t' + vx'/c^2)
The Galilean transform:
x' = -x - vt
t' = t
x = -x'- vt'
t = t'
I am confident that any moderately intelligent person
find the above rather obvious.
What about you, Henry?
Paul
HenriWilson
<paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote
>And since the speed has magnitude and no direction,
Well you know I don't subscribe to the idea of 'gamma' at all.
Apart from that, what you have presented is just standard stuff.
I am pleased to announce that with your help, I have now seen the light!
Motion does not exist. I am sure you will agree that nothing can be said to
be 'moving' in any absolute sense.
What happens is this: THE SPACE BETWEEN OBJECTS CHANGES.
It can either become smaller or larger. That is all. There are no such
entities as 'frames of reference'.
>
>Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:tkrpuu8rl3qrslkcc...@4ax.com...
Well, Henry?
What do you say?
Does the above prove the LT transform to be inconsistent and that:
"Marcel is right on this one and SR is ridiculed and refuted."
It seems to me very much like you are backing out.
> Well you know I don't subscribe to the idea of 'gamma' at all.
>
> Apart from that, what you have presented is just standard stuff.
Indeed it is. And very elementary stuff.
Does that mean that YOU find it so?
> I am pleased to announce that with your help, I have now seen the light!
>
> Motion does not exist. I am sure you will agree that nothing can be said to
> be 'moving' in any absolute sense.
And you think the former statement follows from the latter? :-)
I am sure you will agree that nothing can be said to be shorter,
or longer, or higher, or wider in any absolute sense.
Relations does not exist.
Right, Henry?
> What happens is this: THE SPACE BETWEEN OBJECTS CHANGES.
And what does this mean?
Why does "SPACE BETWEEN OBJECTS CHANGE"?
When does "SPACE BETWEEN OBJECTS CHANGE"?
If there are more than two objects, which of the determines
how "SPACE BETWEEN OBJECTS CHANGE"?
> It can either become smaller or larger. That is all. There are no such
> entities as 'frames of reference'.
Quite.
And there are no such entities as co-ordinates.
Or co-ordinate transforms.
Or real numbers. Or complex numbers. Or vectors.
Or square roots. Or algebra. Or circles. Or multiplication.
All these entities are man-defined mathematical abstractions
and do not "really" exist in Nature.
So we can discharge them all, and do without them.
Is that your point, Henry?
Or what is your point, did you really have one?
That is, except from diverting the attention from the issue:
Does the fact that co-ordinate transform equations depend on
the definition of the co-ordinate systems prove that
co-ordinate transforms in general and the LT in particular
are inconsistent?
Are you still claiming that:
"Marcel is right on this one and SR is ridiculed and refuted."?
Henry..?
Paul
HenriWilson
<paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:tkrpuu8rl3qrslkcc...@4ax.com...
>> >The Galilean transform:
>> > x' = -x - vt
>> > t' = t
>> > x = -x'- vt'
>> > t = t'
>> >
>> >I am confident that any moderately intelligent person
>> >find the above rather obvious.
>> >
>> >What about you, Henry?
>
>Well, Henry?
>What do you say?
Any intelligent person can see that it is obviously right if the wrong
assumptions are made.
>
>Does the above prove the LT transform to be inconsistent and that:
>"Marcel is right on this one and SR is ridiculed and refuted."
>
>It seems to me very much like you are backing out.
I'll leave it to Marcel to explain his theory.
>
>> Well you know I don't subscribe to the idea of 'gamma' at all.
>>
>> Apart from that, what you have presented is just standard stuff.
>
>Indeed it is. And very elementary stuff.
>Does that mean that YOU find it so?
I think so. Standard nonsense!
>
>> I am pleased to announce that with your help, I have now seen the light!
>>
>> Motion does not exist. I am sure you will agree that nothing can be said to
>> be 'moving' in any absolute sense.
>
>And you think the former statement follows from the latter? :-)
>I am sure you will agree that nothing can be said to be shorter,
>or longer, or higher, or wider in any absolute sense.
>Relations does not exist.
>Right, Henry?
NO!!!!!!
A length can be said to be 'shorter than it was some time before' - IN AN
ABSOLUTE SENSE.
>
>> What happens is this: THE SPACE BETWEEN OBJECTS CHANGES.
>
>And what does this mean?
>Why does "SPACE BETWEEN OBJECTS CHANGE"?
>When does "SPACE BETWEEN OBJECTS CHANGE"?
>If there are more than two objects, which of them determines
>how "SPACE BETWEEN OBJECTS CHANGE"?
That works out OK. Think about it.
Anyway don't expect me to perfect this entirely new and radical theory
overnight. It will take time.
>
>> It can either become smaller or larger. That is all. There are no such
>> entities as 'frames of reference'.
>
>Quite.
>And there are no such entities as co-ordinates.
>Or co-ordinate transforms.
>Or real numbers. Or complex numbers. Or vectors.
>Or square roots. Or algebra. Or circles. Or multiplication.
>All these entities are man-defined mathematical abstractions
>and do not "really" exist in Nature.
>So we can discharge them all, and do without them.
>Is that your point, Henry?
Not exactly Paul.
However one might consider all distance measurements as being one
dimensional. Space is made up by a combination of all these distances.
>
>Or what is your point, did you really have one?
>That is, except from diverting the attention from the issue:
> Does the fact that co-ordinate transform equations depend on
> the definition of the co-ordinate systems prove that
> co-ordinate transforms in general and the LT in particular
> are inconsistent?
There is nothing inconsistent about your above analysis. I didn't say there
was.
I just don't agree that transforms in which 'v' appears as a quadratic can
be correct.
>
>Are you still claiming that:
>"Marcel is right on this one and SR is ridiculed and refuted."?
Well we know that SR is ridiculous. So we can't say that refutes Marcel.
>
>Henry..?
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:gunsuu8cl4i2a6skj...@4ax.com...
Henry Wilson never said what he said.
And if he did, he didn't mean to say what he said.
You are running away from your own statement again, Henry.
Henry Wilson wrote:
"Marcel is right on this one and SR is ridiculed and refuted."?
And "this one" was Marcel's claim that the fact that
the Lorentz transform equation depend on the definition
of the co-ordiante systems, prove the LT inconsistent.
> >Are you still claiming that:
> >"Marcel is right on this one and SR is ridiculed and refuted."?
>
> Well we know that SR is ridiculous. So we can't say that refutes Marcel.
Evasive babble. Your answered it above.
No, you are no more claiming that Marcel is right "on this one".
Maybe it isn't so smart to automatically agree to any
alleged refutation of SR without knowing what you
actually are agreeing to?
Paul
HenriWilson
<paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
Marcel is basically correct about the sign of v.