On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 9:54:40 PM UTC+2,
chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> For some reason, I think Sylvia Else do have some good background in physics and also intelligent.
>
>
>
> Sylvia Else wrote elsewhere:
>
> "That sounds very much as if you're thinking of the "each is longer than the other" contradiction.
>
>
>
> Yet the true situation is that each is, in its own space-time, longer
>
> than the *projection* of the other onto that space-time.
>
>
>
> I think not. When the Lorentz transform is used in the way required to
>
> predict time dilation or length contraction, the result is
>
> mathematically a projection. Special relativity describes relatively
>
> moving objects as occupying space-times of differing orientations. As
>
> counter-intuitive as this seems, experiments indicate that it is
>
> correct. Lengths and periods of time cannot be compared directly when
>
> they exist in different space-time orientations, since an observer
>
> cannot occupy both space-time orientations concurrently. Some sort of
>
> projection is required, and that explains the apparent "each is longer" contradiction."
>
>
>
> Indeed, Sylvia is very clever with words. Or is it mathematics? :
>
> "in its own space-time",
>
> "...occupying space-times of differing orientations",
>
> "...since an observer cannot occupy both space-time orientations concurrently..."
>
> "observers,...,observers,..."
>
>
>
> What Sylvia wrote is easily acceptable to hitlong, Dirk, Bodkin, ...and they do think and interpret special relativity in these manner - there is no contradiction whatever with special relativity. If people like hitlong, Dirk, Bodkin were serious about wanting to dissociate themselves from Einstein's theories, they must not read
>
> Sylvia Else. They should only read Chan Rasjid. If you don't want to be affected by Christianity, don't read the Bible. If you don't want to be touched by Islam, don't read anything on Islam.
>
>
>
> "The pen is mightier than the sword"
>
>
>
> We have an inertial frame A represented by coordinates (x, y, z, t) and another B represented by coordinates (x', y', z', t') with relative motion. Special relativity attempts a model using the Lorentz
>
> transformation as the basis to study physics of motion. Sylvia mentioned the LT is just a geometrical rotation in 4-D (I don't know what is rotation in 4-D...). What I know is that the LT (a mapping) is used to compute coordinates of one frame using those from another, that's all - nothing more nor less.
>
> (x, y, z, t) -> <- (x', y', z', t')
>
> It depends on which set of variables one has interest in. Using fancy concepts from higher mathematics (space-time orientations,tensors, non-euclidean geometry) do not change the nature of our real physical
>
> world. The real world do not adapt to fancy mathematics, but the fancy mathematics have to adapt to the real world. If it is found that predictions do not match empirical measurements of data, the theory is discarded. But there may not be a need to look for empirical observations to check if a theory is validated. A theory is
>
> stop dead on tract once it is found to be contradictory.
>
>
>
> Einstein's special relativity theory is inconsistent.
>
>
>
> It is so as the Lorentz transformation imply time dilation.
>
> Time dilation is a contradiction because time dilates.
>
>
>
> The Lorentz transformation imply length contraction.
>
> Length contraction is a contradiction because length contracts.
>
>
>
> A stationary clock is in frame B with coordinates (x', y', z', t'). A clock is nothing more, nor less, than a piece of equipment. SR finds that LT of t' from t do not match. Time in SR is relative.
>
> We may like to use this manner of description :
>
> Under LT, the dilated time t' that clock B monitors has a rate that is only a rate "observed" by a stationary observer in A.
>
> Therefore that there is time dilation and differing rates is not a contradiction.
>
>
>
> But the clock B is dumb and does not understand higher mathematics. The main problem is in the real world. We can only have one clock B to monitor one time t' of frame B. A dumb clock "clocks at only one rate" irrespective if anyone is looking or not looking. But SR has many different observers giving many purported relative "observed readings" of that one clock which can only monitor that one time t' of frame B. The one clock B had to provide different readings all at once to different observers. So special relativity is an impossibility.
>
>
>
> Time dilation is a contradiction because time dilates.
>
>
>
> The only way time do not dilate is when time is absolute. Any theory that treats time within its theory, and not just as a dimension, is invalid.
>
>
>
> Absolute time is a principle of physics.
>
>
>
> Einstein's theories, special and general, cannot be valid.
>
>
>
> Absolute time was never needed to be explicitly stated as a principle of physics in the time of Newton. Only the insane and the heretical would have tried to theorize of a relative time of what belongs only to the mystery of God. But since a new trend has been started with Fitzgerald, Lorentz and Einsteins, it has to be stated explicitly as a principle.
>
>
>
> So Herbert Dingle was no fool. The two clocks A, B are real clocks that would only tick as they would tick as clock ticks.
>
> So clock A runs not faster, and at the same time, not slower than that of clock B.
>
>
>
> There is no Twins Paradox. When the space twin comes back after traveling near the speed of light, he comes home to meet his twin brother of the same age.
>
>
>
> Louis Essen too is no fool. Length is a basic dimension in physics that can only be measured. When we change the standard of unit of measure of length to fit a theory for local regions, then the theory cannot be used consistently for the real world which is a whole, not just collections of infinitesimal local regions.
>
>
>
> And length can be incorporated into a theory only as a basic dimension. Any theory which attempts to treat space within its theory beyond just as a dimension, is invalid.
>
> Absolute space is a principle of physics.
>
>
>
> In another thread, someone mentions why Einstein's theories and quantum physics can never be compatible - because Einstein used relative spacetime while quantum physics uses absolute space
>
> and time. At some point in time in the future, one has to go. Which?
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Chan Rasjid.
Many physicists not known fundamental experiments ( as are Harres's Experiment
http://www.trendsinphysics.info/kniha/2-2.html#2-2-2,
Kaufmann's Experiment
http://www.trendsinphysics.info/kniha/2-1.html#2-1-2
Do you still not know, that form of Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric Field is asymmetrical ?
When, wake you up ?
Physics relativists.
Are you worried that I'm really okay. Therefore you reject my arguments and you recommended to do by others too.
I told you already that Albert ends.You can not hold him indefinitely on a pedestal. Experiments are basis in science.
Many physicists, especially in the first half of the 20th century were strongly against Einstein's ideas.
I told you already that Albert ends.
You can not hold him indefinitely on a pedestal. Experiments are basis in science.
But here goes about physics itself , about its solid foundation.
Even civil and human performance Alberta very well, but this in itself physics on its solid foundation. And the theory of relativity, Albert stands on feet of clay. The sooner you realize this, the higher the acceleration of knowledge in science achieved.
Lubo Vlcek