Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Simplified 2 D contraction
22 views
Skip to first unread message
david...@yahoo.com
May 20, 2013, 10:29:18 AM5/20/13
to
This is a simplified statement of the 2 dimensional problem that leads to what looks like contradictory measurements. The steps I used are labeled so if anyone sees an incorrect application of the concepts of Special Relativity please identify the step and what you perceive as the incorrect application of SR.
With three inertial reference frames having relative motion in two dimensions there appears to be contradictory views between measurements in the frames when Einstein's concepts used in Special Relativity are applied. Can anyone explain which of the following steps incorrectly applies the concepts of Special Relativity?
Given info: There are three inertial reference frames in this problem. For simplicity in describing the problem setup, the coordinate systems of each of the frames is setup so that there is no rotation between the coordinate systems of the three frames. In this problem there is a square in an inertial reference frame with the left edge of the square aligned to the y-axis and its bottom edge aligned to the x-axis. I'll call this inertial reference frame SF (for square frame). There is another inertial reference frame moving along the diagonal line of the square in the negative x and negative y direction. I'll call this inertial reference frame F1. From the point of view of F1, the square is moving in the positive x and positive y direction. The last frame of this problem I'll call F2. This frame is moving in the negative y direction with respect to SF with zero relative velocity in the x direction relative to SF, and is moving in the positive x direction with respect to frame F1 with zero relative velocity in the y direction with respect to F1. We can think of the problem as two travelers starting out at x=0,y=0 of frame SF with one traveler moving along the diagonal line of the square in the negative x and y direction and the other traveler moving along the y-axis of SF moving in the negative y direction with both travelers having the same velocity in the y direction. The two travelers simply view their motion as a relative velocity in the x direction.
In Special Relativity, along the direction of relative motion between two inertial reference frames, the two frames do not agree on length measurements or when events occur, but perpendicular to the direction of relative motion both frames agree on length measurements and whether or not events are simultaneous. Applying those concept to these three inertial reference frames leads to contradictory views.
Which step is an incorrect application of Einstein's concepts?
Step 1:
Per special relativity, there is a length contraction of measurements in the direction of relative motion, but there is no length contraction as measured perpendicular to that motion. The SF frame and the F1 frame have relative motion along a 45 degree line in the F1 frame (given info), so the frame F1 measures that there is a length contraction along the diagonal length of the square in the direction of relative motion but there is no length contraction along the diagonal length of the square that is perpendicular to the relative motion of F1 and SF.
Step 2:
Because of the relative motion between F1 and SF, F1 measures the square to be a parallelogram with different lengths between the diagonal lines connecting the opposite corners (Step 1). Since these diagonal lines are of different lengths, the angle between any two adjacent sides of the square, as measured in F1, cannot be 90 degrees.
Step 3:
The motion of the square as measured in F1 is symmetrical about the 45 degree line between the x and y axes. Since adjacent sides of the square as measured in F1 cannot be 90 degrees apart (Step 2), and the shape is symmetrical about the 45 degree line, neither the left edge of the square is measured to be parallel to the y-axis of F1 nor is the bottom edge of the square measured to be parallel to the x-axis of F1 (otherwise they would either be 90 degrees apart contrary to Step 2, or there would not be symmetry about the 45 degree line of motion). F1 says that the left edge of the square always is at an angle relative to the y-axis. At no point in time are all points of the left edge of the square (parallelogram) aligned parallel with the y-axis as measured in F1.
Step 4:
Here we look at frames SF and F2. These two frames only have a relative motion in the y-direction. Therefore all points of the left edge of the square are always share the same x coordinate for every point in time. So for every point in time all points of the left edge of the square are aligned parallel to (or on) the y-axis.
Step 5:
Frames F1 and F2 only have a relative motion in the x direction. Per Special Relativity, all events perpendicular to this motion (that is in the y-direction) at any point in time for any given x are always identical.
Step 6:
Step 3 says at no point in time are all the points of the left edge of the square aligned parallel to the y-axis as measured in F1. Step 4 says at every point in time all the points of the left edge of the square are aligned parallel to the y-axis as measured in F2. Step 5 says for a given x and t, the measurements of F1 and F2 in the y direction are identical. All three conditions cannot be true.
Thanks,
David Seppala
Bastrop TX
With three inertial reference frames having relative motion in two dimensions there appears to be contradictory views between measurements in the frames when Einstein's concepts used in Special Relativity are applied. Can anyone explain which of the following steps incorrectly applies the concepts of Special Relativity?
Given info: There are three inertial reference frames in this problem. For simplicity in describing the problem setup, the coordinate systems of each of the frames is setup so that there is no rotation between the coordinate systems of the three frames. In this problem there is a square in an inertial reference frame with the left edge of the square aligned to the y-axis and its bottom edge aligned to the x-axis. I'll call this inertial reference frame SF (for square frame). There is another inertial reference frame moving along the diagonal line of the square in the negative x and negative y direction. I'll call this inertial reference frame F1. From the point of view of F1, the square is moving in the positive x and positive y direction. The last frame of this problem I'll call F2. This frame is moving in the negative y direction with respect to SF with zero relative velocity in the x direction relative to SF, and is moving in the positive x direction with respect to frame F1 with zero relative velocity in the y direction with respect to F1. We can think of the problem as two travelers starting out at x=0,y=0 of frame SF with one traveler moving along the diagonal line of the square in the negative x and y direction and the other traveler moving along the y-axis of SF moving in the negative y direction with both travelers having the same velocity in the y direction. The two travelers simply view their motion as a relative velocity in the x direction.
In Special Relativity, along the direction of relative motion between two inertial reference frames, the two frames do not agree on length measurements or when events occur, but perpendicular to the direction of relative motion both frames agree on length measurements and whether or not events are simultaneous. Applying those concept to these three inertial reference frames leads to contradictory views.
Which step is an incorrect application of Einstein's concepts?
Step 1:
Per special relativity, there is a length contraction of measurements in the direction of relative motion, but there is no length contraction as measured perpendicular to that motion. The SF frame and the F1 frame have relative motion along a 45 degree line in the F1 frame (given info), so the frame F1 measures that there is a length contraction along the diagonal length of the square in the direction of relative motion but there is no length contraction along the diagonal length of the square that is perpendicular to the relative motion of F1 and SF.
Step 2:
Because of the relative motion between F1 and SF, F1 measures the square to be a parallelogram with different lengths between the diagonal lines connecting the opposite corners (Step 1). Since these diagonal lines are of different lengths, the angle between any two adjacent sides of the square, as measured in F1, cannot be 90 degrees.
Step 3:
The motion of the square as measured in F1 is symmetrical about the 45 degree line between the x and y axes. Since adjacent sides of the square as measured in F1 cannot be 90 degrees apart (Step 2), and the shape is symmetrical about the 45 degree line, neither the left edge of the square is measured to be parallel to the y-axis of F1 nor is the bottom edge of the square measured to be parallel to the x-axis of F1 (otherwise they would either be 90 degrees apart contrary to Step 2, or there would not be symmetry about the 45 degree line of motion). F1 says that the left edge of the square always is at an angle relative to the y-axis. At no point in time are all points of the left edge of the square (parallelogram) aligned parallel with the y-axis as measured in F1.
Step 4:
Here we look at frames SF and F2. These two frames only have a relative motion in the y-direction. Therefore all points of the left edge of the square are always share the same x coordinate for every point in time. So for every point in time all points of the left edge of the square are aligned parallel to (or on) the y-axis.
Step 5:
Frames F1 and F2 only have a relative motion in the x direction. Per Special Relativity, all events perpendicular to this motion (that is in the y-direction) at any point in time for any given x are always identical.
Step 6:
Step 3 says at no point in time are all the points of the left edge of the square aligned parallel to the y-axis as measured in F1. Step 4 says at every point in time all the points of the left edge of the square are aligned parallel to the y-axis as measured in F2. Step 5 says for a given x and t, the measurements of F1 and F2 in the y direction are identical. All three conditions cannot be true.
Thanks,
David Seppala
Bastrop TX
Dirk Van de moortel
May 20, 2013, 10:57:57 AM5/20/13
to
david...@yahoo.com <david...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is a simplified statement of the 2 dimensional problem that
> leads to what looks like contradictory measurements. The steps I used
> are labeled so if anyone sees an incorrect application of the
> concepts of Special Relativity please identify the step and what you
> perceive as the incorrect application of SR.
>
> With three inertial reference frames having relative motion in two
> dimensions
Here is your error, David.
> This is a simplified statement of the 2 dimensional problem that
> leads to what looks like contradictory measurements. The steps I used
> are labeled so if anyone sees an incorrect application of the
> concepts of Special Relativity please identify the step and what you
> perceive as the incorrect application of SR.
>
> With three inertial reference frames having relative motion in two
> dimensions
You were NEVER able to correctly describe the simplest problem
involving TWO frames in relative motion in ONE dimension.
It's better not to try to walk before you can crawl. You have been
trying to crawl since two decades now, and everytime you fall
over and hurt your nose. You might as wel give up -- but clearly
that is not in your nature.
Dirk Vdm
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
May 20, 2013, 11:29:37 AM5/20/13
to
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote in
message
news:knddm6$2il$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
====================================
Here is your error, Dork. You are a fucking idiot as
wel
[sic]
as a faggot.
--
"Dork Van de faggot" <dirkvand...@hotspam.not> wrote in message
news:km7lml$jge$1...@speranza.aioe.org
*You* will end up struggling to explain the meanings of
*his* variables, and the idiot will not -- repeat: NOT--
understand what you are trying to do.
See v’ = x’/t’. It does not work.
No, imbecile, v' = 0. -- Dork Van de faggot
How hard is it to listen to the definitions and stick with the rules? – Dork
Van de faggot
"Did you ever had algebra?" - Dork Van de faggot
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.
news:km7lml$jge$1...@speranza.aioe.org
*You* will end up struggling to explain the meanings of
*his* variables, and the idiot will not -- repeat: NOT--
understand what you are trying to do.
See v’ = x’/t’. It does not work.
No, imbecile, v' = 0. -- Dork Van de faggot
How hard is it to listen to the definitions and stick with the rules? – Dork
Van de faggot
"Did you ever had algebra?" - Dork Van de faggot
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.
rotchm
May 20, 2013, 11:35:40 AM5/20/13
to
On May 20, 10:29 am, davids0...@yahoo.com wrote:
<crap snipped>
You need to learn how to write. Your text is way too long.
Restate it in 1/4 of its length and be more concise.
<crap snipped>
You need to learn how to write. Your text is way too long.
Restate it in 1/4 of its length and be more concise.
shuba
May 20, 2013, 1:47:50 PM5/20/13
to
Trolling from Bastop TX:
> This is a simplified statement
This is a simplified response. The Seppalectomy is a safe,
efficient, and effective procedure gaining in popularity,
having no known adverse side effects.
---Tim Shuba---
> This is a simplified statement
efficient, and effective procedure gaining in popularity,
having no known adverse side effects.
---Tim Shuba---
Paul Cardinale
May 20, 2013, 3:49:07 PM5/20/13
to
If you had the math skills of an ordinary high school student, you
could apply the LT and find your errors.
Don't expect anyone to do that for you, as you have always
demonatrated a total inability to learn.
You should realize by now that you are just plain stupid.
could apply the LT and find your errors.
Don't expect anyone to do that for you, as you have always
demonatrated a total inability to learn.
You should realize by now that you are just plain stupid.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
May 20, 2013, 3:59:20 PM5/20/13
to
"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:9a2b13ad-84cb-44d9...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
--
==============================================
Commiserations, Crapinale! You have managed to produce a one-line insult, your only capability.
The miserable putrid scum Paul Cardinale can only resort to lies when confronted with
his own rank stupidity.
The world will be a better place, the average happiness and the average IQ of the
human race will rise markedly on the day the Porkie Crapinale dies.
Commiserations, Crapinale! You have managed to produce a one-line insult, your only capability.
The miserable putrid scum Paul Cardinale can only resort to lies when confronted with
his own rank stupidity.
The world will be a better place, the average happiness and the average IQ of the
human race will rise markedly on the day the Porkie Crapinale dies.
Paul Cardinale
May 20, 2013, 9:53:55 PM5/20/13
to
On May 20, 12:59 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
<LordAndroc...@May2013.edu> wrote:
> "Paul Cardinale" <pcardin...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
"One-line insult"? Looks like you can't count past 'one' without
making a mistake.
<LordAndroc...@May2013.edu> wrote:
> "Paul Cardinale" <pcardin...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
making a mistake.
xxein
May 20, 2013, 10:06:38 PM5/20/13
to
On May 20, 3:59 pm, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
<LordAndroc...@May2013.edu> wrote:
> "Paul Cardinale" <pcardin...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
xxein: You complain about lies and insults? Why? Do you think yours
are better?
<LordAndroc...@May2013.edu> wrote:
> "Paul Cardinale" <pcardin...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
are better?
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
May 21, 2013, 1:25:07 AM5/21/13
to
"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:b845d273-53ad-4928...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
=========================================
”You should realize by
now
that you are just plain stupid” is a one line insult,
although who you are
addressing is a mystery.
”If you had the math
skills of an ordinary high school student, you
could apply the LT and
find your errors.” reflects your own inabilities
as you have no idea
what a
transformation is and fool nobody except yourself.
“Demonatrated” presumably means you need your demon
exorcized -
see a Catholic Priest, you arsehole.
--
This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Paul Cardinale
May 21, 2013, 10:32:21 AM5/21/13
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
He doesn't think at all. He's just a bucket of shit who spews sewage.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
May 21, 2013, 10:43:48 AM5/21/13
to
"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:b0ddf503-9eac-4da7...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
david...@yahoo.com
May 21, 2013, 11:48:28 AM5/21/13
to
On Monday, May 20, 2013 2:49:07 PM UTC-5, Paul Cardinale wrote:
> If you had the math skills of an ordinary high school student, you
>
> could apply the LT and find your errors.
>
I total agree with you Paul. If I had the math skills of an ordinary high school student, I could apply the LT and find my errors. But I don't make the errors of someone with the math skills of an ordinary high school student so the errors aren't as easy to find. The professors at MIT and Princeton who I've been exchanging email with haven't been able to resolve the contradictory views in this problem. Can you?
> If you had the math skills of an ordinary high school student, you
>
> could apply the LT and find your errors.
>
I listed the steps in the problem. Which step do you disagree with, or can't you find one? No one who posted has identified the incorrect step - they just made posts like little kids on a playground would do.
David Seppala
Bastrop TX
xxein
May 21, 2013, 11:20:07 PM5/21/13
to
someone disagreeing with it like a playground kid. And don't even
think Bastrop TX means a diddly squat to anybody. You are just cheap
underwear pretending to be an Armani suit.
Paul Cardinale
May 23, 2013, 11:26:40 PM5/23/13
to
bucket of scum.
Paul Cardinale
May 23, 2013, 11:27:25 PM5/23/13
to
Sylvia Else
May 23, 2013, 11:32:18 PM5/23/13
to
> The
> professors at MIT and Princeton who I've been exchanging email with
> haven't been able to resolve the contradictory views in this problem.
Misspelt "can't be bothered"
> professors at MIT and Princeton who I've been exchanging email with
> haven't been able to resolve the contradictory views in this problem.
Sylvia.
0 new messages