SR Issue Split

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

brucep

Valued Senior Member
rpenner said:
By definition a thought experiment is a rigorous exploration of the predictions of a physical theory. You lack rigor and so there is not enough thought in your thought experiment for it to merit that description. You have ignored relativity of simultaneity and therefore ignored basic characteristic of special relativity, dating back to Einstein's original 1905 paper.

Let f,g,h be time-like inertial world lines. Let j, k be space-like straight lines. Let ℓ be a light-like straight line. Then we have in both coordinate system the following descriptions of these lines:
$$
\begin{array}{c|c|c} \textrm{Line} & \textrm{Frame} \; \Sigma & \textrm{Frame} \; \Sigma' \\ \hline \\ f & x = 0 & x' = -vt' \\ g & x = vt & x' = 0 \\ h & x = vt - \frac{d'}{c} v \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} & x' = - \frac{d'}{c} v \\ j & t = \frac{d'}{c} \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} & x' = - \frac{c^2}{v} \left( t' - \frac{d'}{c} \left(1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} \right) \right) \\ k & x = \frac{c^2}{v} \left( t - \frac{d'}{c} \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} } \right) & t' = \frac{d'}{c} \\ \ell & x = ct & x' = ct' \end{\array} $$ $$
\begin{array}{c|c|c} \textrm{Event} & \textrm{Frame} \; \Sigma & \textrm{Frame} \; \Sigma' \\ \hline \\ O=f \cap g \cap \ell & \left( x=0, \; t=0\right) & \left(x'=0, \; t'=0 \right) \\ P = f \cap h \cap j \cap k & \left( x = 0, \; t = \frac{d'}{c} \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} \right) & \left( x' = - \frac{d'}{c} v, \; t' = \frac{d'}{c} \right) \\ Q = j \cap \ell & \left( x = d' \, \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}, \; t = \frac{d'}{c} \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}} \right) & \left( x' = d' \, \left(1 - \frac{v}{c} \right) , \; t' = \frac{d'}{c} \left(1 - \frac{v}{c} \right) \right) \\ R = k \cap \ell & \left( x = \frac{c d' \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}{c - v}, \; t = \frac{d' \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}{c - v} \right) &\left( x' = d' , \; t' = \frac{d'}{c} \right) \end{\array}$$
So by ignoring relativity of simultaneity, you improperly confuse lines j and k and therefore confuse events Q and R.
Click to expand...

Imagine that. Somebody ignoring relativity of simultaneity in this science forum. As big as the 'holiday was' he still improved on presentation.
 
paddoboy said:
Your errors have been noted by rpenner. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Oh, I could not follow his point. So, I am trying to get him to show me exactly which equation is wrong and he did not do that yet.

Can you show me? Everything is numbered so it should be easy for you.
 
chinglu said:
Oh, I could not follow his point. So, I am trying to get him to show me exactly which equation is wrong and he did not do that yet.

Can you show me? Everything is numbered so it should be easy for you.
Click to expand...

No I can't. I mentioned that in my OP.
The point now is to see whether you are big enough and brave enough, to accept you are wrong.
 
chinglu said:
1) You said the thought experiment is wrong or something. So, perhaps we can make it simple. Are the calculations for the times on the clocks at C' and M correct when they are co-located.

2) You claimed I ignored ROS. I used LP and LT. ROS is built into LT. LP is an axiom. Further, I could not follow your events. Perhaps you can change it a bit. For example, where is the lightning along the positive x-axis located in M and M' when C' and M are co-located? Just put down an answer or answers on its location. You see in nature, it is somewhere in the coordinates of the M and M' systems. So, where is it?
Click to expand...

This guy just goes from message board to message board peddling the same stuff, like Farsight.

He has been dormant for a while, so I suspect that he has recently gone off his medications.

Please, see your doctor again, chinglu!
 
paddoboy said:
Of course chinglu if you are ultimately proposing another alternative unreviewed theory, you are in the wrong forum.Let's see how this pans out anyway.
Click to expand...

Hey chinglu ol matey!
I said the above in post 8. It appears I have been shown to be correct.
I therefor predict that if you keep up with your purposely misinterpreted nonsense, this will be moved to either alternative theories, if you are lucky, or otherwise pseudoscience.
My personal choice though is the cesspool.
 
paddoboy said:
SR predicts the following, all which have been CONFIRMED
[1] Relativity of Simultaneity:
[2] Time Dilation:
[3] Length Contraction:
[4] E=Mc2 [Or mass-energy equivalence:


Are you in conflict with any of the confirmed results, all obtained over more than 100 years of experimental and observational data?
Click to expand...

I dispute #1, and also #2, #3, and #4.
 
I would probably add a fifth prediction to the previous four at post 33, that of the validity of "Frames of References"
 
Motor Daddy said:
I dispute #1, and also #2, #3, and #4.
Click to expand...

That's OK..each to there own.
The point is, the four/five points are confirmed, let's see you unconfirm them.
And your own beliefs [like the belief of our creationists friends] will not in any way change the accepted science and the applications of those confirmed observations.
Best of luck.
 
paddoboy said:
That's OK..each to there own.
The point is, the four/five points are confirmed, let's see you unconfirm them.
And your own beliefs [like the belief of our creationists friends] will not in any way change the accepted science and the applications of those confirmed observations.
Best of luck.
Click to expand...


Look at the pretty pics of the relative motion in my stats. Let me know when you think you've found a fault. 'Til then, I'll have to assume it's correct, which means SR is wrong.
 
Motor Daddy said:
Look at the pretty pics of the relative motion in my stats. Let me know when you think you've found a fault. 'Til then, I'll have to assume it's correct, which means SR is wrong.
Click to expand...

:)
As I said, your silly assumptions do not make a scrap of difference to the big wide wonderful SR/GR world out there.
Best of luck!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top