SR Issue

[paddoboy]

Ummm, for you to have such an opinion, exactly where is anything I posted wrong?

Science is not about personal opinions that cannot be supported with any facts or calculations.

My opinion is based on three premises.
[1] After more then 100 years of data and observations supporting SR and GR, and the many applications and experiments which support both, I don't believe we have another Einstein [you] that has anything other then an agenda, to show SR/GR is wrong.

[2]rpenner has shown your calcs to be lacking. I have faith in his conclusions rather then your own.

[3] I remember you and your prolonged rather inane claims about time dilation and associated effects in alternative theories months ago, and your usual stubborness then to accept obvious facts, that a 10 year old would recognise.

 

[chinglu]

Because you should have learned how to do special relativity 1200 posts ago.
These are the frame Σ coordinates of event Q.
There are the frame Σ' coordinates of event R.

I can put it in your lingo.

When C' and M are co-located, event Q is valid for the frame Σ.
When C' and M are co-located, event R is valid for the frame Σ'.

When C' and M are co-located, event LT(Q) is valid for the frame Σ'.
When C' and M are co-located, event LT(R) is valid for the frame Σ.

However, LT(Q) != R and LT(R) != Q.

Hence, if C' and M are co-located, Q is valid for the frame Σ and so is LT(R).
Hence, if C' and M are co-located, R is valid for the frame Σ' and so is LT(Q).

Therefore, SR claims when C' and M are co-located, the light flash is at Q and LT(R) with LT(R) != Q, so 2 different places.
Therefore, SR claims when C' and M are co-located, the light flash is at R and LT(Q) with LT(Q) != R, so 2 different places.

 

[chinglu]

My opinion is based on three premises.
[1] After more then 100 years of data and observations supporting SR and GR, and the many applications and experiments which support both, I don't believe we have another Einstein [you] that has anything other then an agenda, to show SR/GR is wrong.

[2]rpenner has shown your calcs to be lacking. I have faith in his conclusions rather then your own.

[3] I remember you and your prolonged rather inane claims about time dilation and associated effects in alternative theories months ago, and your usual stubborness then to accept obvious facts, that a 10 year old would recognise.

Ummmm, where is my math wrong?

 

[paddoboy]

Ummmm, where is my math wrong?

You already have your answer...And my prediction over your obvious continued stubborness.

 

[chinglu]

You already have your answer...And my prediction over your obvious continued stubborness.

I am only interested in science and math discussion. Thanks anyway.

 

[paddoboy]

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?

 

[paddoboy]

Would you please start your own thread with your own ideas?

You havn't answered my five confirmed points re the validity of SR yet?

 

[chinglu]

You havn't answered my five confirmed points re the validity of SR yet?

Not interested. Start your own thread.

 

[rpenner]

Chinglu, you calculated both position and time of events Q and R in frame Σ and in Σ'. What is the law of nature that says a flash of light can't be at two different positions at two different times? What is the speed of light moving from Q to R in frame Σ? What is the speed of light moving from Q to R in frame Σ'?

by ignoring relativity of simultaneity, you improperly confuse lines j and k and therefore confuse events Q and R.

Using the Minkowski inner product, line f is orthogonal to line j in any frame and line h is orthogonal to line k in any frame.

Where you got confused is by trying to assert absolute time, even in the face of two different inertial frames and events which don't happen in the same place.

In frame $$\Sigma$$ events P and Q happen in different places at the same time. In frame $$\Sigma'$$ events P and R happen in different places at the same time. In neither frame do events Q and R happen at the same time. That can't happen because line j is not the same as line k when $$0 \lt \beta \lt 1$$.

... the opposite of ROS is built into your assumptions.
...
Since your assumption that line j was identical to line k turned out to not be consistent with Special Relativity, it is only natural that event Q and event R are physically distinct in both position and time. As there is no frame which says Q and R are simultaneous, it is not a contradiction with nature that Q and R happen in different places. Indeed every coordinate frame says Q and R are light-like separated, which does directly agree with nature.

Chinglu makes a big point about there being two events, Q and R, but this follows because we are talking about two distinct imaginary coordinate systems with different notions of coordinate time and therefore different definitions of simultaneity. Chinglu says he respects that relativity of simultaneity is part of special relativity but seems incapable of acknowledging that coordinate time is a human choice, not a law of nature. Two human-defined coordinate frames in relative motion leads to two different definitions of what events are simultaneous with event P. Lines j and k encapsulate those definitions, and lead to intersecting with two different events on line ℓ.
...
Q and R are two different events, but they are both separated by a light-like space-time interval, so nothing in physical law says a flash of light can't at one time be at the location described by event Q and at a later time be at the location described by event R. That's what light does, it moves.

Line ℓ is slanted in every inertial coordinate system because it's always a light-like line describing how light moves at speed c. Events Q and R a two different parts of line ℓ so they two describe the movement of light between two different concepts of "now". That's central to the concept of relativity of simultaneity.
...
The laws of nature include that

• inertial motion in flat space-time are represented in inertial Cartesian coordinates straight time-like lines,
• that light in vacuum moves in straight light-like lines in in inertial Cartesian coordinates,
• events considered simultaneous by an inertial observer all fall on straight space-like lines in inertial Cartesian coordinates, and
• all inertial Cartesian coordinate systems agree on the value of the space-time interval, (c Δt)² − (Δx)² − (Δy)² − (Δz)², between the coordinates of two events

but they don't include that one inertial observer's description of simultaneity is universally applicable. Thus lines j and k are different lines and thus events Q and R are different events, separated in both space and time by a light-like space-time interval. Nature doesn't have a problem with light being at one position at one time and at another position at a later time so long as (c Δt)² − (Δx)² − (Δy)² − (Δz)² = 0.

You can't talk about anything being at two different positions at the same time if they are only at different positions at different times. Looking at events Q and R, they are clearly distinct events but both are part of line ℓ so if Q and R are at different positions (as they are in every coordinate system) then they must also happen at different times (which is also true in every coordinate system).

Everyone at rest in cordinate frame Σ agrees that P and Q happen at the same time, but that R happens later than Q. Everyone at rest in coordinate frame Σ' agrees that P and R happen at the same time, but that R happens later than Q. Both coordinate frames agree that light moves from O to Q to R, being at different places at different times.

Therefore you have not demonstrated any contradiction with nature.

 

[chinglu]

Chinglu, you calculated both position and time of events Q and R in frame Σ and in Σ'. What is the law of nature that says a flash of light can't be at two different positions at two different times? What is the speed of light moving from Q to R in frame Σ? What is the speed of light moving from Q to R in frame Σ'?

First off, I never claimed there was a law of nature that would not place a light flash at two different places at two different times. Further, I am assuming light is c to all frames and observers. So, your post above is meaningless.

The issue here is to determine under all SR calculations where the light flash is located when C' and M are co-located. This is but one time in each frame and I proved that and with great difficulty got you to accept that.

Where I am deeply concerned is that you did not answer my extremely simple post. Now, if you are not able to handle it, simply admit it.

Here it is again. Try to keep in mind all conclusions and calculations are based on M and C' being co-located.

When C' and M are co-located, event Q is valid for the frame Σ. (This assumes LP is correct)
When C' and M are co-located, event R is valid for the frame Σ'. (This assumes LP is correct)

When C' and M are co-located, event LT(Q) is valid for the frame Σ'. (This assumes LT correctly translates)
When C' and M are co-located, event LT(R) is valid for the frame Σ. (This assumes LT correctly translates)

However, LT(Q) != R and LT(R) != Q. (This show LP and LT do not agree when M and C' are co-located)

Hence, if C' and M are co-located, Q is valid for the frame Σ and so is LT(R).
Hence, if C' and M are co-located, R is valid for the frame Σ' and so is LT(Q).

Therefore, SR claims when C' and M are co-located, the light flash is at Q and LT(R) with LT(R) != Q, so 2 different places.
Therefore, SR claims when C' and M are co-located, the light flash is at R and LT(Q) with LT(Q) != R, so 2 different places.

 

[paddoboy]

Not interested. Start your own thread.

So you agree that SR is correct?
You just have a problem with the maths? Is that correct?

 

[rpenner]

when M and C' are co-located, one lightning strike is located at 2 different positions along the positive x-axis in both coordinate systems, which of course is inconsistent with nature.

What is the law of nature that says a flash of light can't be at two different positions at two different times?

First off, I never claimed there was a law of nature that would not place a light flash at two different places at two different times.

Right, so in every frame events Q and R happen at different times and different places, so you only mistake is assuming the phrase "when M and C' are co-located" has some universal meaning independent of frames. No law of nature is violated -- the only thing that is violated is your assumption of the universality of simultaneity. Lines j and k are different lines. Therefore $$Q \neq R$$, because no law of nature would make it possible for Q and R to be the same event.

Event P, the only place and time in the whole of space-time where M and C' are co-located, is far away from both Q and R, so the notion of which of Q or R happens at the same time as P is dependent on choice of coordinate systems. That's what relativity of simultaneity means.

You claimed I ignored ROS.

Yes, I did, in [post=3198606]post #2[/post].

All of this was briefly explained in [post=3198606]post #2[/post].

 

[chinglu]

Right, so in every frame events Q and R happen at different times and different places, so you only mistake is assuming the phrase "when M and C' are co-located" has some universal meaning independent of frames. No law of nature is violated -- the only thing that is violated is your assumption of the universality of simultaneity. Lines j and k are different lines. Therefore $$Q \neq R$$, because no law of nature would make it possible for Q and R to be the same event.

I did not agree to any universal meaning independent of frames, I proved when M and C' are co-located, both frames agree on the time of their respective frames. This is simple SR. Are you saying this is false? Further I never said Q=R is required under SR, since it is not.

Now, you again ran in terror from my post. The only reason you would do this is because you know you are totally wrong. Are you terrified to answer these questions? Do not forget, you pretend to be an expert to all those reading this thread.
They will understand by your fear you have no idea what you are doing.

Here it is again. Try to keep in mind all conclusions and calculations are based on M and C' being co-located.

When C' and M are co-located, event Q is valid for the frame Σ. (This assumes LP is correct)
When C' and M are co-located, event R is valid for the frame Σ'. (This assumes LP is correct)

When C' and M are co-located, event LT(Q) is valid for the frame Σ'. (This assumes LT correctly translates)
When C' and M are co-located, event LT(R) is valid for the frame Σ. (This assumes LT correctly translates)

However, LT(Q) != R and LT(R) != Q. (This show LP and LT do not agree when M and C' are co-located)

Hence, if C' and M are co-located, Q is valid for the frame Σ and so is LT(R).
Hence, if C' and M are co-located, R is valid for the frame Σ' and so is LT(Q).

Therefore, SR claims when C' and M are co-located, the light flash is at Q and LT(R) with LT(R) != Q, so 2 different places.
Therefore, SR claims when C' and M are co-located, the light flash is at R and LT(Q) with LT(Q) != R, so 2 different places.

 

[paddoboy]

Now, you again ran in terror from my post. The only reason you would do this is because you know you are totally wrong. Are you terrified to answer these questions? Do not forget, you pretend to be an expert to all those reading this thread.
They will understand by your fear you have no idea what you are doing.
.

Oh my oh my oh my......Are you really serious?
Have you not learnt from your other anti SR stance a few months ago.
Time dilation and length contraction occur.
That is observed everyday.
Are you going to question them again, or have you accepted that your mathematical ability is somewhat askew.

ps: No one runs in terror from you. That is just your own delusion.
People have continually shown you are wrong...
You continually blissfully and ignorantly ignore them...
People do get rather tiresome of answering your nonsensical claims and just give up.
If you had anything, anything at all, you would get it peer reviewed.
That is what is obvious to most reading this thread.
And this is why this thread will eventually be moved or scrapped, if you are not open and honest about what is being put to you.

 

[chinglu]

The only thing you've proofed in this thread is your complete ignorance of the subject matter.

Prove your assertion.

 

[paddoboy]

Prove your assertion.

I can certainly prove the assertion that you were totally banned from Cosmoquest, and you have had threads shifted before on this forum, from Maths and Physics to pseudoscience and/or Alternative theories.

As brucep said, you are fooling no one with your "Prove it" complexity, and again, until you get what you are claiming peer reviewed you have zilch, nada, SFA and nothing.

Now some questions again......
Do you know what time dilation is?..and how it ties in with SR?
Do you know what length contraction is? and how it ties in with SR?
Do you know what SR and its postulates mean?
Do you object/deny the legitimacy of peer review?
When you look at the Sun today, do you know that you are actually looking at it as it was 8.25 minutes ago?
Do you realize there is no Universal now, and that Albert Einstein showed conclusively that both time and space are not absolute?

If you object to any of those FACTS, then you [using your own childish tactics, must prove it]

 

[paddoboy]

This thread is about the OP like every other thread. I note you can't do anything and you don't know what you are doing. You already agreed you do not know what you are doing.

Why don't you bother some other thread where you can understand what is going on.

This thread is about SR and its validity. You have been banned here and elsewhere with your consistent baseless assumptions in the face of 100 years of evidence showing SR is factual, time dilation does occur, and length contraction does take place.
You know you will probably be banned again, and this thread probably will be shifted.
You are using invalidated mathematics to cover those facts, and fail to accept your error as detailed by rpenner.
Your record in the past matches very similar occurrences both here and elsewhere and your continuing stubborness in ignoring factual evidence.

Those are the facts chinglu. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[chinglu]

This thread is about SR and its validity. You have been banned here and elsewhere with your consistent baseless assumptions in the face of 100 years of evidence showing SR is factual, time dilation does occur, and length contraction does take place.
You know you will probably be banned again, and this thread probably will be shifted.
You are using invalidated mathematics to cover those facts, and fail to accept your error as detailed by rpenner.
Your record in the past matches very similar occurrences both here and elsewhere and your continuing stubborness in ignoring factual evidence.

Those are the facts chinglu. Nothing more, nothing less.

Refute the post that RPenner can't and has not refuted. Otherwise, move along.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141840-SR-Issue&p=3199693&viewfull=1#post3199693

If you think he has refuted it, prove it.

 

[paddoboy]

This may help you to see the error of your mathematical ways chinglu.
I hope it helps.

Special Relativity/Mathematical transformations
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Mathematical_transformations


are you in agreement with that mathematical verification of SR?

 

[chinglu]

This may help you to see the error of your mathematical ways chinglu.
I hope it helps.

Special Relativity/Mathematical transformations
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Mathematical_transformations

I have produced the math in the OP.

We are concentrated on that to determine what is going on. You pray that you can change the subject.

So,


are you in agreement with that mathematical verification of SR?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141840-SR-Issue&p=3199693&viewfull=1#post3199693

Can you refute it or no.

And, I am not sure what this all says. So, move along.