Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
What makes you think it has something to do with a religious or creationist agenda?
SR Issue
- Thread starter chinglu
- Start date
What makes you think it has something to do with a religious or creationist agenda?
No, it isn't.
Einstein wrote his 1905 paper in German, and so the sentence you lifted is
"Zur Zeit t = τ = 0 werde von dem zu dieser Zeit gemeinsamen Koordinatenursprung beider Systeme aus eine Kugelwelle ausgesandt, welche sich im System K mit der Geschwindigkeit V ausbreitet."
and translated as: "At the time t = τ = 0 , when the origin of the co-ordinates is common to the two systems, let a spherical wave be emitted therefrom, and be propagated with the velocity c in system K. "
. So the use of "Zur Zeit" and "zu dieser Zeit" clearly establish that the sense of "when" in the English translation is only in the sense of meaning "at what time" not "under what circumstances" or "if" as you would have it. Zeit ist Zeit.That's not to say you can't translate the concept of coordinate time into logic, but since the truth of statements which are frame- and time-dependent are not universally true or false, you can't use predicate logic, but rather first-order logic. The geometry of [post=3198606]post #2[/post] is well-suited for description in the language of first-order logic.
In this language, $$\mathcal{M}$$ is the set of all possible events, a.k.a. "space-time" with a difference operator and a vector-space structure on event differences (thus $$\mathcal{M}$$ is a affine space or principal homogeneous space or torsor over the additive group structure of a vector space). Coordinates are linear functions between $$\mathcal{M}$$ and the set of real numbers, $$\mathbb{R}$$.
So your issue remains: $$ct(P) = ct(Q)$$, $$ct'(P) = ct'(R)$$, $$x(O) = x(P)$$, $$x'(O) > x'(P)$$ and $$ct(R) - x(R) - ct(O) + x(O) = ct(Q) - x(Q) - ct(O) + x(O) = ct'(R) - x'(R) - ct'(O) + x'(O) = ct'(Q) - x'(Q) - ct'(O) + x'(O) = 0$$ is consistent with $$ct(R) > ct(Q)$$ .
Last edited:
Someone else inferred it that appears to no him better..
I then asked him in this thread, and he refuses to answer it... :shrug:
No, I am an equal-opportunity hater of ignorance, propaganda-mongering and the meddling with public policy by all religious nuts, regardless of species. But of course there you go being dishonest. Muslims did not create the Religious Right, Creationism/Intelligent Design and they are not suing the schools over the teaching of religion (not in appreciable numbers) nor do they predominate the statistics which show the attitudes of American conservative Christians to be severely illiterate, particularly in matters of science, as is reflected in your endless, mindless attack posts..
You're just mad because I nailed you. I caught you with your pants down, trying to discredit radiometric dating through this sideways "attack"on relativity, which is really just one big trolling session with one of the most articulate of posters on the subject -- rpenner -- who displays brilliance in all kinds of subjects way beyond the first principles of physics. And of course, that's emblematic of academic excellence, something you abandoned in . . . the 7th grade? rpenner probably has more research hours alone than you have in total education. And yes, when you discredit educated people you do really look all the more like the fool.
When you finally grow some chops, and learn to admit error, you'll be ready for the 8th grade. Come back then and start asking questions, and a dozen or two of the good folks here will be glad to help you.
As I recall, that's correct, it stems from some comment chinglu made in some other thread a long time ago, showing his true colors. Back when he was primarily obsessed with hypothetical "light orbs", arriving at some absurdity almost identical to Farsight's manic machinations with coordinate speed of light. I don't remember exactly what he said and haven't found it yet, but I'd like to read it again just to refresh my memory.
I thought it may be of interest to post a collection of chinglu's many rather "less then adult" like remarks.....
He hasn't been around for a while....
He hasn't been around for a while....
Your statements are false like I proved your statements are false where you claimed the co-location of C' and M is an example of ROS.
Now, the problem is simple.
If C' and M are co-located, then the light postulate in the primed frame places the lightning at $$(d',0,0,d'/c)$$. But, ROS says if C' and M are co-located the lightning is at $$(d'(1-v/c),0,0,d'(1-v/c)/c)$$ in primed frame coordinates.
Therefore, if C' and M are co-located, ROS contradicts the light postulate in the primed frame. That is a fatal error.
1) In your translation scheme, you are claiming "when" as in timing based on "Zur Zeit". But, as I am sure you know frame to frame clock synchronization is not decidable under SR. So, you can't use your translation unless you can perform frame to frame clock synchronization.
2) In reality, "Zur Zeit" means "the now". Clearly, this was intended to mean all clocks were synched in each frame to 0 at the co-location event of the origins. Naturally, this is impossible since clock synchronization requires the Einstein clock sync method and that requires time to perform synchronization. However, we will accept it anyway. Note, we are accepting an impossible set of conditions.
But, what is more important, your were unable to provide an independent description of the meaning of the origins being at the same location, which you demanded of me.
So, I translated my intention to mean a logical predicate because I thought it was clear when the origins are co-located, then they are co-located.
Since you are not accepting this reasoning, then you must show "if C' and M are co-located" in the F' frame, then they are not in the M' frame or vice versa. But, the OP already proved this is a common event by proving each frame agreed "if C' and M are co-located" then the times at the clocks of C' and M are different but the same for each frame.
So, can you prove if C' and M are co-located in one frame, they are not co-located in the other frame yes or no. If not, then your post is in error. I expect an answer to this in your next post. You have been evading this from the beginning.
Finally, I am not understanding your operators above using ct.
Please completely spell out your terms and events you have labeled above. I think if you do this, then the conclusion of this thread will agree the OP is correct once I respond to you.
Since you are reasonable, it does not have to do with any of that. I have no idea where this poster gets this false information.
I doubt it. The site search function no longer works for me. You don't recall admitting that you are Creationist-biased in your attacks on science?
OK, I did not say the two events you stated above are the same events.
I said, if C' and M are co-located, then the lighting is at primed $$(d',0,0,d'/c)$$ based on the light postulate in the primed frame.
Then, the OP shows if C' and M are co-located, then LT claims the lightning, using the M frame information, is at primed $$(d'(1-v/c),0,0,d'(1-v/c)/c)$$ .
If C' and M are co-located then the lightning cannot be at 2 different primed frame locations along the positive x-axis.
That is the point of the OP.
Last edited:
Nope sorry. Not sure where you got this false information about me that you continue to post.
Each frame has it own light postulate. The light postulate in the frame is assumed to be absolutely true within that frame and is not to be questioned. That is SR.
Time and space within the logic of the frame is Euclidean. SR is not invoked unless you want to understand another frame.
If you are considering another frame's information, under SR you must conclude length contraction and time dilation. So your statement is true in this context. However, the OP shows if C' and M are co-located, then the unprimed frame gets the wrong answer for where the lighting is in the primed frame compared to where the primed frame information places it if C' and M are co-located. That is not allowed.
So, if you are comparing frame to frame, deviations can occur.
But, the OP is not comparing frame to frame, it is comparing a frame to the same frame. That is the difference.
I am not treating the primed frame as preferred. But, what I do is assume if C' and M are co-located, where is the lightning in the view of the primed. All those here agree it is at d'.
OK, so that is not the issue,
Here comes the issue.
If C' and M are co-located, where does the unprimed frame say the lightning is in the primed frame. You see, this must have an answer. Note, we are not asking where it is in the unprimed frame, we are asking where it is in the primed frame based on LT.
Now, what they are all saying is the relativity of simultaneity can say if C' and M are co-located, then the unprimed frame can put the lightning at a different primed frame location and still be right.
So, by the light postulate in the primed frame, if C' and M are co-located the lightning is at the primed frame location $$(d',0,0,d'/c)$$.
Then, by the relativity of simultaneity, if C' and M are co-located the lightning is at the primed frame location $$(d'(1-v/c),0,0,d'(1-v/c)/c)$$.
So, if C' and M are co-located SR claims the lightning is at 2 primed frame locations along the positive x-axis which does not happen in nature.
That is what this is about.
As I said, it's my recollection from an earlier post you made when you were tripping on light orbs. My post here was to advise readers that when Creationists attack the constancy of c and/or relativity, they are trying to lay the groundwork for asserting that radiometric dating of the Earth is false and invalid, so they can promote Ussher's bullshit that the Eath is 6,000 years old -- the premise Ken Ham relied on in building a museum designed to convince vulnerable minds that humans walked with dinosaurs.
Here it keeps coming back to me that your attacks on SR are made absurd by the long running measurements with GPS. Since you persist in this, I have to assume that you think you've laid the groundwork for telling us there is some other magic is at work which makes GPS "seem to verify SR" (?) perhaps based on your conflation of light speed and coordinate speed of light, or some similar nonsense.
Creationism-bias also correlates with your moronic attempt to tell us that life did not originate on Earth through abiogenesis but rather the current hypotheses of abiogenesis (esp. RNA-world) are invalid. When I say "moronic" I am reflecting on Origin's initial remark "no, you're right; life on Earth really doesn't exist." (Words to that effect.) Of course you never bothered to belly up to the bar and confront that with even a modicum of sincerity. So, we can enter that as Exhibit A to the claim that "chinglu admits to being a Creationist", along with the rest of your posts there, since I can't get the site search feature to work (can anybody out there make it work?).
When the index of correlation begins to rise, a person trained to detect it speaks up. Of course you could just nip this in the bud and get straight to the point. Show your cards. Cut the BS and tell us what your top level gripe is against science and academia. The most likely answer is that you are a Creationist. The next most likely answer is a guess. My guess is that it stems from failure in school, and then living in denial of your shortcomings, blaming the teachers, for example. Other than that there simply is no explanation as to why you persist to argue pro-Creationist positions (recognizing that attacks on SR shore up the Young Earth argument among believers.) If you had an ounce of sincerity you would at least speak to the readers with some modicum of genuineness and air your general complaints candidly. It's that lack of candid rebuttal that correlates with Creationism-bias as well.
Otherwise if you have questions about math, physics and biology, you should be asking for help arriving at the right answers rather than insisting that the world should adopt your wrong answers.
To be sure that I'm intending to relate this to the thread topic, I say again that GPS verifies SR every time a fix is taken. That's the most heavily used measurement system for verifying a theory since the synchronization of clocks using 60 Hz power became a persistent means of verifying the laws of electromagnetics (or some principle corollary to those laws). So how the hell can the opening post carry an ounce of sincerity? GPS works, so by that fact alone, you can't possibly have a valid reason for attacking it. Other than, as I said (a) Creationism-bias (b) a chip on your shoulder against academia or (c) [you show you cards and we cut to the chase.]
So what's up? Just come out of the closet, have your nervous breakdown, and become a contributor for once in your miserable life of posting attacks on science (noting that you might be getting your money for nothing and your chicks for free and this is just a aberration).
Again: GPS verifies SR. What possible claim against SR remains plausible, since the day GPS was deployed?
It does have an answer; there are so many places you could find an answer that it's like the question is ridiculous.chinglu said:
There isn't anything special about colocation, it isn't a requirement for proving simultaneity is relative. The unprimed frame "claims" the lightlike event is located in the primed frame at a distance from the common origin given by x' = ct'. The primed frame has their own view of "at rest".
There is no way that the observers can compare their local time and distance measurements unless they communicate somehow. What is so hard about it? You see simultaneous strikes of lightning, or two street lights switching on at the same time, a moving observer sees the same events at different times; neither observer claims they can see what the other sees.
But you seem to be claiming they can, or that they see twice as many events when there's a moving observer, so that means with three observers, they all see 3 x 2 events. . .?
Therefore, since this isn't something that happens, Einstein was, um, wrong? The silly man didn't notice the big mistake?