[NPA Chat] Mr. Laski, Thank you very much!

[ba...@comcast.net]

Dear Dr. Laski:

You are my God! 

I apologize for my late reply. I have been absent for several days.

 

The relativistic speed addition formula, which was derived from the LT, works only in 1-D situation as you have seen in my exercises.

A I-D situation is the case in which two involved objects or observers  are situated or moving in the same straight line regardless of the direction of the straight line. (Just for guests’ reference.)  

 

Again, one of my main point is that Einstein and all physicists have considered/understood speed only in terms of 1-D situation and never in 2-D or 3-D situation. This is a paramountly important discovery!  People do not get what my terms 1-D, 2-D or 3-D situation mean.

 

Most people think that relativity is about 4^th dimension of time and space. Whatever the 4^th dimension of space-time is, Einstein's concept of speed is based on 1-D situation in which an observer and an object are situated or moving in the same straight line. Relativists think that a straight line curves in the 4th space-time. I do not care whether the straight line is curved or folded or broken or tangled. What I am talking about is that relativists assume that observers and objects are in the same straight line (regardless of its curvature) which I define as 1-D situation. 

 

I am startled to see that almost all physicists do not discern the concept of relative speed and proper speed in 2-D or 3-D situations. 

I am improving my paper. (My English is not perfect.)  If I am ready (It will take some time), I will send you a hard copy with my signature as a souvenir. Please allow me to mention your name in the epilogue of my paper.

Happy new year to you and all NPA!

 

Best regards,

Byoungha

 

 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laski" <la...@autocom.pl>
To: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 1:34:19 PM
Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] John,        Attached Please find the Better Version of the Exercises



Hi Byouhgha and All,

 

    I fully agree that LT formulae refer to the one-dimensional case only. It is strange that we had to wait so long for something so simple. Congratulations on the occasion of your revolutionary discovery. I hope that your idea of presentation the paper will work.

    You may like to see my paper entitled: "Absolute and Relative Speeds of Light" (15 NPA Conference, 2008).

    In my last paper (17 NPA Conference, 2010) entitled:"Alternative Interpretation of Special Relativity Formulae" you can find derivation of LT formulae starting from the formula of Minkowski.

 

Happy New Year for you and NPA

Janusz  D. Laski

   ----- Original Message -----

From: ba...@comcast.net

To: NPA Members Chat Email

Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 10:40 PM

Subject: [NPA Chat] John,Attached Please find the Better Version of the Exercises

Hi John,

Attahced please find the better version of the exercises. This is the same. Just a bit better arrangement.

 

Best regards,

Byoung

 

 

_______________________________________________
MembersChat mailing list
Membe...@worldnpa.org
http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org

---

_______________________________________________
MembersChat mailing list
Membe...@worldnpa.org
http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org

_______________________________________________
MembersChat mailing list
Membe...@worldnpa.org
http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org

[John Huang]

Byoung and Laski,

 

If you have time and interest to correct SR, you may think about the speed of rays in Doppler effect.

 

If we let the observed frequency be Fo and the frequency of the ray emitted from the source when the source is rest be Fs, then we have Fo=Fs((c-Vo)/(c-Vs)), c is the velocity of the ray and Vo is the velocity of the observer, Vs is the velocity of the source, all c, Vo, and Vs are in one dimension, on the same line.

What happens in 1D scenario is Doppler effect, not LT. If Einstein limited the SR for events happened at the origin point O' of the moving system S', and don't allow the constant velocity to expand to constant speed like what he did on 1905-6-30, then, that kind of SR is 1D scenario too. But, LT is not designed for 1D scenario only. Now, back to Doppler effect. The postulate of invariant light speed is for Rays, not for photons, simply because Doppler effect is for rays, not for photons. The speed of every single photon is higher than c, because a photon is not running at a path of straight line. A photon runs at one polarization angle of sine wave with its velocity of c, the higher of its frequency, the higher of its speed, but, same averaged velocity. When we define the speed of a ray, we don't care about the actual sine wave path of photons in that ray, we use the averaged velocity of photons in that ray as the speed of that ray. Do you think so?

 

The main difference between rays and photons is that rays is what we used to count TIME INTERVALS, or TIME SPEED, like in Doppler effect but photons is what we used to compare TIME POINTS like in Simultaneity. Both of them are very important, but, you may think about the main difference from another angle. The speed of a ray is actually a speed of a group of photons. From this angle, let us look into two situations:

 

1. You turn a flash light 360 degree above your head in one second. Then, what will happen is this group of photons will run to all different directions and if you have a huge cylinder screen of radius R around you, you will see that the ray runs a distance of more than 6.28R in one second. If R=|c|, then, the speed of the ray is more than 6.28c; however, the speed of all photons in that ray is still c.

 

2. Assume that you are on a running train with constant velocity v relative to the rest universe, you turn on a light bulb at the center of s section of that train just once and one minute after that you turn it on and let it on. What is expected by you, logically speaking? Since the postulate assume the velocity of light is independent from the speed of the source of light, the first batch of photons will reach the rear end before it will reach the front end, at least theoretically. For the second batch of continuous photons, since the source of light is stationary to both ends, the time intervals, or time speeds, measured at both ends are the same, no matter if the train slows down or goes faster after the second batch started. What will remain the same includes the frequency of the rays even if a helicopter lifts that section of train and swing it at any direction. What may be different is the time points a MARKED batch of photons reach both ends. You may like to think about the time interval and time point once again.     

About to derive LT from the ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2-(ct)^2, formula of the distance between an event and the origin point of spacetime coordinate system, I think Dr. Laski forgot which one is following which one. Since Minkowski defined that distance to match the hypothesis of "time dilation" in SR, and SR is related to LT, so that to prove LT by Minkowski's definition is logically not acceptable. Dr. Laski may look into how or why Minkowski define the distance like that.

 

Regards,

John

 

 

2010/12/31 <ba...@comcast.net>

[John Huang]

In the first situation 1, I made a mistake, "... however, the speed of all photons in that ray is still c." should be "...the (averaged) velocity of ...". Photons are not easy to deal with.

 

John 

2011/1/1 John Huang <jh1...@gmail.com>

[Laski]

John, Byoungha and Others,

 

    You certainly know that the Formula of Minkowski valid in 3D contains three space components (x,y,z). Such a formula cannot be starting point for derivation of LT formulae. However formula of Minkowski reduced  to 1D (one space component only) can.

     Details of derivation of LT formulae starting from Minkowski formula for 1D can be found in my  paper (mentioned earlier), presented on the last NPA Conference.

    You can checked that the inverse way (from LT to Minkowski formula for 1D) is also possible, what means that the formulae are equivalent. As a matter of fact this inverse way is known to be the first.

    In conclusion I would say that from logical point of view  the Lorentz Transform formulae have to refer to one dimentional space only.

    I am going to comment later some other points raised by John.

 

Regards

[Laski]

John, Byoungha and Others,

 

    You certainly know that the Formula of Minkowski valid in 3D contains three space components (x,y,z). Such a formula cannot be starting point for derivation of LT formulae. However formula of Minkowski reduced  to 1D (one space component only) can.

     Details of derivation of LT formulae starting from Minkowski formula for 1D can be found in my  paper (mentioned earlier), presented on the last NPA Conference.

    You can checked that the inverse way (from LT to Minkowski formula for 1D) is also possible, what means that the formulae are equivalent. As a matter of fact this inverse way is known to be the first.

    In conclusion I would say that from logical point of view  the Lorentz Transform formulae have to refer to one dimentional space only.

    I am going to comment later some other points raised by John.

 

Regards

Janusz D. Laski

----- Original Message -----

From: John Huang

To: NPA Members Chat Email

Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 4:59 AM

Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Mr. Laski, Thank you very much!

[John Huang]

Laski,

 

Here is the history I know. The Michelson-Morley Experiment caused Lorentz to create LT, then, Einstein claimed he derived LT from postulate and created SR, then Minkowski defined the distance of an event and the origin point of spacetime to match SR. Could you tell me the history you know?

 

Now, you said that if we start from 1D format of ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2-(ct)^2; like what Einstein did, let event located at O' to get x'=y'=z'=0 and x=vt, y=z=0, then we can derive LT so that LT have to refer to one demensional space only. Is this what you meant?

 

Regards,

John

2011/1/3 Laski <la...@autocom.pl>

[Laski]

John,  Byoungha and NPA,

 

    I consider formulae of SRT from mathematical point of view rather neglecting their  history. From that point of view the  Minkowski formula for 1D can be obtained starting from Lorentz Transform formulae (see below) as well as vice versa (see my paper). 

 

x'=G(v-u)t      t'=Gt [1-(u/c)(v/c)]      (1,2)

 

where G means Lorentz coefficient "gamma", u means velocity of observer and the rest as usually.

Ratio of (1) to (2) gives formulae for the velocity addition

 

x'/ct'=v'/c=[v/c-u/c] / [1-(u/c)(v/c)]        (3)

 

which corresponds to formula for hyperbolic tangent of a difference:

 

th(A-B)=[thA - thB] / [1-(thA)(thB)]      (4)

 

So we can write:

v'/c=th(A-B)      u/c=thB                   (5,6)

                                                        

v/c=thA=[shA / chA]=[s*shA / s*chA]=x/ct                           

(7)

what for stationary observer gives            

x/c=s*shA      t=s*chA                      (8,9)       

For nonstationary one there is

 

v'/c=th(A-B)=[sh(A-B)/ch(A-B)]=

=[s*sh(A-B)/s*ch(A-B)]=x'/ct'              (10)

what gives  

x'/c=s*sh(A-B)      t'=s*ch(A-B)      (11,12)

 

So we can finally write the Minkowski formula for 1D:

 

t^2-(x/c)^2=s^2=(t')^2-(x'/c)^2             (13)

 

Please note that  the proper time s has to be different from null. Puting in equation (12) s=0 destroys the consistency of SRT formulae.