SR Issue

So far, no one has asserted any math in the OP is wrong.

So, any posters need to say, the OP is right, but the OP is wrong.

That is where we are.
 
arfa brane said:
It does have an answer; there are so many places you could find an answer that it's like the question is ridiculous.

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?
Click to expand...

Which part of the OP math are you claiming is false?

Please be specific.
 
Which part of the OP math are you claiming is false?
Click to expand...
The part that leaves open the question of "where" and "when" either of two observers are colocated. The part you, now 17 pages after getting your first answer and rejecting it, are still struggling with--perhaps intentionally.

You don't understand what 'relativity of simultaneity' means, and you seem to believe that you do understand it. You can't post a coherent, unambiguous description of it, using ordinary language or using mathematics. Right there your mission has failed mondo all up in it.
 
chinglu said:
We are dealing with the math in this thread.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Actually you were just attempting to deny that you admitted to being a Creationist, otherwise I would not have elaborated as I did.

As for math: we are dealing with SR, which is a measured coordinate rotation in 4-space, which is similar to the projection of a rotation in 3-space to 2-space. All of that is entirely mathematical in the abstract. We are talking about a projection of such a rotation in one reference frame to the observation plane, and in GPS the 3-space measurements are highly refined (i.e., to include corrections for the eccentricities of the Earth geoid) which is why you get such a tight fix most of the time. And since GPS is an Earth mapping system we no longer have to put up with WELL IT'S JUST MATH. Readers are familiar with it and its remarkable accuracy (most of the time).

So your reply is non-responsive. I was responsive to points you posted, clear, and probably remarkably accurate as well (feel free to disprove it).

You wanna play with Tex some more, and keep this purely in the abstract? Prove that GPS does not invalidate your opening post, using the appropriate math. I claim that it does. It works. QED.

But nice try, attempting to dodge the real issues you are raising here.
 
arfa brane said:
You don't understand what 'relativity of simultaneity' means, and you seem to believe that you do understand it. You can't post a coherent, unambiguous description of it, using ordinary language or using mathematics. Right there your mission has failed mondo all up in it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for reminding us of the top level syndrome here. Ignoring all of my recent objections, this rises to the top as the summary reason chinglu persists in this.
 
arfa brane said:
The part that leaves open the question of "where" and "when" either of two observers are colocated. The part you, now 17 pages after getting your first answer and rejecting it, are still struggling with--perhaps intentionally.

You don't understand what 'relativity of simultaneity' means, and you seem to believe that you do understand it. You can't post a coherent, unambiguous description of it, using ordinary language or using mathematics. Right there your mission has failed mondo all up in it.
Click to expand...

I understand the 'relativity of simultaneity'. Now, if you are correct, you will point out where the math fails in the OP based on the 'relativity of simultaneity'.

Can you support your assertions yes or no?
 
Aqueous Id said:
Actually you were just attempting to deny that you admitted to being a Creationist, otherwise I would not have elaborated as I did.

As for math: we are dealing with SR, which is a measured coordinate rotation in 4-space, which is similar to the projection of a rotation in 3-space to 2-space. All of that is entirely mathematical in the abstract. We are talking about a projection of such a rotation in one reference frame to the observation plane, and in GPS the 3-space measurements are highly refined (i.e., to include corrections for the eccentricities of the Earth geoid) which is why you get such a tight fix most of the time. And since GPS is an Earth mapping system we no longer have to put up with WELL IT'S JUST MATH. Readers are familiar with it and its remarkable accuracy (most of the time).

So your reply is non-responsive. I was responsive to points you posted, clear, and probably remarkably accurate as well (feel free to disprove it).

You wanna play with Tex some more, and keep this purely in the abstract? Prove that GPS does not invalidate your opening post, using the appropriate math. I claim that it does. It works. QED.

But nice try, attempting to dodge the real issues you are raising here.
Click to expand...

I am not seeing that you found an error in the math of the OP. Why not?
 
Aqueous Id said:
Actually you were just attempting to deny that you admitted to being a Creationist, otherwise I would not have elaborated as I did.

As for math: we are dealing with SR, which is a measured coordinate rotation in 4-space, which is similar to the projection of a rotation in 3-space to 2-space. All of that is entirely mathematical in the abstract. We are talking about a projection of such a rotation in one reference frame to the observation plane, and in GPS the 3-space measurements are highly refined (i.e., to include corrections for the eccentricities of the Earth geoid) which is why you get such a tight fix most of the time. And since GPS is an Earth mapping system we no longer have to put up with WELL IT'S JUST MATH. Readers are familiar with it and its remarkable accuracy (most of the time).

So your reply is non-responsive. I was responsive to points you posted, clear, and probably remarkably accurate as well (feel free to disprove it).

You wanna play with Tex some more, and keep this purely in the abstract? Prove that GPS does not invalidate your opening post, using the appropriate math. I claim that it does. It works. QED.

But nice try, attempting to dodge the real issues you are raising here.
Click to expand...

Here you can work on this. You invoked GPS.

Assume a light pulse is emitted at some common location in ECI and ECEF from a satellite. Do both coordinate systems agree light measures c when the signal is received at an earth based receiver?
 
chinglu's confusion I think is related to the earlier discussion I had with Neddy Bate about the location of events along the lightcone.

Of course, if you emit some light at the origin of your rest frame, then it will travel a distance given by x = ct; the Lorentz transform to a moving frame gives this distance as x' = ct'. But neither observer can see a wavefront of light moving along their respective 'future' lightcones. Geez.

Therefore the transforms are mathematical devices, although "proving" they correspond to reality is then a matter of determining (via measurement) where the light is. Mirrors and other devices at fixed locations can achieve this, then the only problem is fixing their location, but this isn't a big deal on the fixed surface of a planet like ours. So, I guess that strongly implies that Einstein's theories are things we can "prove" every day, and so if the problem chinglu insists SR has was real, someone would have noticed.

Maybe he can show us what the problem has to do with the reliable transmission of data packets along fiber optic cables using light signals; I mean, shouldn't someone using a mobile in a plane see twice as many data packets as someone at home?
 
Aqueous Id said:
Thanks for reminding us of the top level syndrome here. Ignoring all of my recent objections, this rises to the top as the summary reason chinglu persists in this.
Click to expand...

Perhaps someone with better IT skills then mine, can resurrect the thread that chinglu claimed over more then a 100 pages I think, that Time dilation and length contraction did not happen, and that time and space were absolute.
I'm not even sure what the name of the thread was, suffice to say it was shifted and locked and chinglu banned.

It was similar to this one, with less then adult remarks, a continued ignoring of evidence, a continued denying of reality and the usual arrogant stance that is so obvious here.
That thread is relevent to what is being claimed here under the guise of some maths anomaly.
 
arfa brane said:
chinglu's confusion I think is related to the earlier discussion I had with Neddy Bate about the location of events along the lightcone.

Of course, if you emit some light at the origin of your rest frame, then it will travel a distance given by x = ct; the Lorentz transform to a moving frame gives this distance as x' = ct'. But neither observer can see a wavefront of light moving along their respective 'future' lightcones. Geez.

Therefore the transforms are mathematical devices, although "proving" they correspond to reality is then a matter of determining (via measurement) where the light is. Mirrors and other devices at fixed locations can achieve this, then the only problem is fixing their location, but this isn't a big deal on the fixed surface of a planet like ours. So, I guess that strongly implies that Einstein's theories are things we can "prove" every day, and so if the problem chinglu insists SR has was real, someone would have noticed.

Maybe he can show us what the problem has to do with the reliable transmission of data packets along fiber optic cables using light signals; I mean, shouldn't someone using a mobile in a plane see twice as many data packets as someone at home?
Click to expand...

I asked you a simple question based on your post where you claimed I misunderstood the "relativity of simultaneity".

Now, can you prove this misunderstanding in the OP yes or no. You ran without answering.

Are you going to support your assertions yes or no? No one scientific is willing to listen to someone that fails to scientifically prove their assertions.

You do understand this no?
 
paddoboy said:
Perhaps someone with better IT skills then mine, can resurrect the thread that chinglu claimed over more then a 100 pages I think, that Time dilation and length contraction did not happen, and that time and space were absolute.
I'm not even sure what the name of the thread was, suffice to say it was shifted and locked and chinglu banned.

It was similar to this one, with less then adult remarks, a continued ignoring of evidence, a continued denying of reality and the usual arrogant stance that is so obvious here.
That thread is relevent to what is being claimed here under the guise of some maths anomaly.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I never made such statements. Now prove your assertions. Get to it.
 
chinglu said:
Sorry, I never made such statements. Now prove your assertions. Get to it.
Click to expand...

You never made such statements???
You know lying makes little baby Jesus cry?
Do you accept SR and its postulates such as validity for all FoR's and time dilation and length contraction?
If yes, then I am mistaken and a liar...If no, you are mistaken and a liar.
Which is it?
 
paddoboy said:
You never made such statements???
You know lying makes little baby Jesus cry?
Do you accept SR and its postulates such as validity for all FoR's and time dilation and length contraction?
If yes, then I am mistaken and a liar...If no, you are mistaken and a liar.
Which is it?
Click to expand...

It is up to you to prove I made such statements. Can you do this yes or no.
 
chinglu said:
No one scientific is willing to listen to someone that fails to scientifically prove their assertions.

You do understand this no?
Click to expand...
I don't know if you've noticed, but hardly anyone seems willing to listen to you.
Maybe it's because you keep posting the same thing, and it could be related to the human propensity to lose interest.
 
paddoboy said:
You never made such statements???
You know lying makes little baby Jesus cry?
Do you accept SR and its postulates such as validity for all FoR's and time dilation and length contraction?
If yes, then I am mistaken and a liar...If no, you are mistaken and a liar.
Which is it?
Click to expand...


And a refusal to answer, well that will lead to all the readers, coming to the obvious conclusions re your agenda.
Are you going to answer?
 
arfa brane said:
I don't know if you've noticed, but hardly anyone seems willing to listen to you.
Maybe it's because you keep posting the same thing, and it could be related to the human propensity to lose interest.
Click to expand...

That's fine.

Wait, you said I was wrong. Yet you have been totally unable to refute any math in the OP.

Can you explain why I am wrong when you can't refute any math in the OP? In fact, this proves you are wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top