SR Issue

chinglu said:
Let's take issue #1. If C' and M are co-located, where is the light in primed frame coordinates? This is not special but a question of nature. Where is it?
At the same place, M claims the light is one place in primed coordinates and C' claims it is at another place. So, they are at the same place claiming two different locations for the light in primed coordinates. In order for both of them to be right, light must be at 2 different places in primed coordinates, which does not happen in nature.
Click to expand...
The colocation is an event, I think you've agreed with this previously (but I can't be bothered checking). M and C' are only "at the same place" momentarily, and they each claim the light is at one place; therefore "two different places" makes sense when you understand that C' and M are not in the same frame of reference. You continue to believe there is only one x-axis, common to both frames, but this is a mistake, a mistake that was pointed out to you in post #2.

You still don't understand this basic, fundamental part of relative motion: frames do not share an axis or have anything in common unless they coincide. You seem to think that this colocation event means something permanent happens to both frames, they get stuck together or something along the x-axis. That's a completely ridiculous idea, and you keep claiming Einstein said it, which demeans him; he wasn't that stupid after all, so sorry.

In case you haven't got it yet: your question and the way you ask it are rather inexact descriptions of what light does and how observers in relative motion "see" this light. You intentionally confuse "when" and "where", and you keep doing it. You want to believe you have an accurate "exact" description of a thought experiment, but you don't. You want to believe you understand relative motion and frames of reference (something most children can understand), but you don't. You don't because you aren't very intelligent. You aren't very intelligent because after 23 pages all you can do is repeat the mistakes you made in the OP, you appear to be incapable of taking on anything that contradicts your delusion.

You are both stupid (unintelligent) and unable to consider answers to your questions. So you aren't actually asking for help so you can understand what your problem is, or why your thought experiment appears to contradict something or other, no, you don't want any help at all, what you want is recognition--you are some kind of genius who has found a big mistake in Einstein's theories, something nobody else has noticed! Shame you can't really communicate it seeing how useless you are at math, huh?
 
arfa brane said:
The colocation is an event, I think you've agreed with this previously (but I can't be bothered checking). M and C' are only "at the same place" momentarily, and they each claim the light is at one place; therefore "two different places" makes sense when you understand that C' and M are not in the same frame of reference. You continue to believe there is only one x-axis, common to both frames, but this is a mistake, a mistake that was pointed out to you in post #2.

You still don't understand this basic, fundamental part of relative motion: frames do not share an axis or have anything in common unless they coincide. You seem to think that this colocation event means something permanent happens to both frames, they get stuck together or something along the x-axis. That's a completely ridiculous idea, and you keep claiming Einstein said it, which demeans him; he wasn't that stupid after all, so sorry.
Click to expand...

Here is where you are getting confused. All calculations are translated to primed coordinates.

What you are used to seeing is folks take unprimed coordinates and compare them to primed coordinates. That is not happening here.
Now, if C' and M are co-located, is the light at 2 places or one in primed frame coordinates. That is the issue

So, what do you say?
 
chinglu said:
I am only going to deal with issues concerning the OP. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Time dilation and length contraction are prime results of SR.
Now answer the questions.
Or are you unable to due to the underlying agenda of yours that it will reveal?
 
Note to the thread.

There seem to be confusion on the role of the Lorentz transformations (LT) for SR.

It is not its role to be a random 4-vector generator. Given an experiment with light, it is suppose to provide a 4 vector that matches what the light postulate claims in the other frame.

That is its role under SR.
 
chinglu said:
Not in the OP. Let's stay on the OP, thanks.
Click to expand...

Time dilation and length contraction are fact.
Do you agree?
If you do there is no contradiction in the results of the thought experiment.
If you don't agree, then you will certainly have concocted results, as everyone has informed you.

Now are you still afraid of answering the questions?
Do you agree with time dilation and length contraction?

You have been shown to be in error for at least half a dozen reasons chinglu.
SR has no problems. Time dilation and length contraction are seen to happen.
SR, along with GR are certain accurate descriptions of reality chinglu, and you will never logically deny that.
 
paddoboy said:
Time dilation and length contraction are fact.
Do you agree?
If you do there is no contradiction in the results of the thought experiment.
If you don't agree, then you will certainly have concocted results, as everyone has informed you.

Now are you still afraid of answering the questions?
Do you agree with time dilation and length contraction?

You have been shown to be in error for at least half a dozen reasons chinglu.
SR has no problems. Time dilation and length contraction are seen to happen.
SR, along with GR are certain accurate descriptions of reality chinglu, and you will never logically deny that.
Click to expand...

This is not what my thread is about. Now, can you comment on my OP or not?
 
In summing this thread, It has now been shown that the title, "SR Issue" is a concocted non existent event.
There is no issue with SR.
The facts are obvious that chinglu, as evidenced many times in the past, WILL NOT ACCEPT time dilation and length contraction, even though both have been observed many many times, and both are at the core of his concocted problem.
Thanks though, in the main in proving his errors mathematically, should go to brucep, arfabrane, AId, Neddy, and rpenner.
 
chinglu said:
This is not what my thread is about. Now, can you comment on my OP or not?
Click to expand...

Yes it is.
Time dilation and length contraction and your stubborness in refusing to recognise them are at the core of your gross misunderstandings of reality.
 
paddoboy said:
Yes it is.
Time dilation and length contraction and your stubborness in refusing to recognise them are at the core of your gross misunderstandings of reality.
Click to expand...

Are you able to refute any of my math yes or no.

You are welcome to make as many false assertions as you like.

Now, let's get back on the OP. Can you refute the math yes or no?
 
rpenner said:
So by ignoring relativity of simultaneity, you improperly confuse lines j and k and therefore confuse events Q and R.
Click to expand...



rpenner said:
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 $$0 \lt \beta \lt 1$$.
Click to expand...




arfa brane said:
Your predicate makes no sense; it says when P is true that an observer at M sees the lightning strike in two places, likewise an observer at M' sees two strikes.

Your statement is true only if $$(d'/\gamma,0,0,\frac{d'}{c\gamma}) \,=\,(d'\gamma(1+v/c),0,0,d'\gamma(1+v/c)/c)$$, and $$(d'(1-v/c),0,0,d'(1-v/c)/c)\,=\, (d',0,0,d'/c)$$.

If you can show this your logic might have legs, but I wouldn't try putting a kilt on it.
Click to expand...





rpenner said:
It's not nature's fault that chinglu doesn't understand lines j and k. It's not special relativity's fault that chinglu doesn't understand lines j and k.







LIAR! We disagree on many things. Here is an incomplete list of the disagreements that have been evidenced in this thread:
  • We disagree that you understand relativity of simultaneity.
  • We disagree that you have any great insight into special relativity.
  • We disagree that your math skills even have the potential to show that special relativity is either internally inconsistent or at odds with natures
    • To show special relativity is internally inconsistent you must show that Lorentz transformations are not diffeomorphisms of flat space time, but they are trivial diffeomorphisms and so you have not enough math skills to know you are wasting everyone's time
    • To show special relativity is inconsistent with nature, you need data from physical experiments. Special relativity is already shown to be consistent with the summary of all physical experiments in the field of electromagnetism up through 1865 and turns out to explain pair-production which was confirmed in the 1930's.
  • We disagree that you should be allowed to post in the Physics and Math section of this website.
  • We disagree that "lightning" moves at the speed of light.
  • We disagree that M and M' are frames when you described them as spatial origins of coordinate systems. The systems themselves need new names and I chose Σ and Σ'.
  • We disagree that P, Q, and R are events when you try to re-label them as predicates.
  • We disagree that you know enough logic to use the term predicate.

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.
Click to expand...



The above is just a small sample, just from the first page, of the learned reactions to chinglu's claims.
Culminating in the need of rpenner inferring he is a liar due to his outragious untrue claims.
 
chinglu said:
You are welcome to make as many false assertions as you like.
Click to expand...



You can prove my accusations are false by answering the questions I have asked. But they are not false. They are all factual as all others agree.
Why are you so damn afraid to answer the questions?
 
paddoboy said:
The above is just a small sample, just from the first page, of the learned reactions to chinglu's claims.
Culminating in the need of rpenner inferring he is a liar due to his outragious untrue claims.
Click to expand...

All these claims have been refuted. Note that all of these posters have been forced to agree with all math in the OP. Some tried to refute the math but that was quickly repaired.

So, you are quoting folks that totally agree with the OP math.

What is the point of that?
 
paddoboy said:
You can prove my accusations are false by answering the questions I have asked. But they are not false. They are all factual as all others agree.
Why are you so damn afraid to answer the questions?
Click to expand...

If you want to start a thread about time dilation, do it. My thread is not about that.

This thread is about the OP. Do you have anything about the OP yes or no?
 
chinglu said:
If you want to start a thread about time dilation, do it. My thread is not about that.

This thread is about the OP. Do you have anything about the OP yes or no?
Click to expand...

The thread is about SR. Are you claiming time dilation has nothing to do with SR?
 
chinglu said:
I am only going to deal with issues concerning the OP. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Deal with them how? You've had a lot of responses that address your problem as introduced in the OP.
After 24 pages, you haven't dealt with any of them, so you're just lying. You're lying about SR too. You are just a big fake, lying about something you haven't shown any real understanding of. Your "problem with SR" is ridiculous, ludicrous, and it's way past being funny; it started to look really strange instead, about twenty pages ago.

You are a weird person, but also a liar and a fraud. You have nothing except a very wrong idea about what colocation of two frames of reference might mean. You cling (cling, you) to this strange idea and appear to think you can convince other people there's a problem (how's that going, btw?).

Maybe it will happen if you just try doing the same thing again, or the time after that? I heard that was the definition of something . . . something, something else, yada yada.
 
chinglu said:
No, I am not claiming the primed frame is special.
Click to expand...

Sure you are. You say the correct location for the light is the one which the prime frame measures, and you claim the other location for the light (which is the one which the unprimed frame measures) is incorrect. You are unwittingly choosing the primed frame as the preferred frame.

Here, let me show you your argument in a Minkowski diagram:

q2MvY3a.png


You are arguing that since the co-location of C' and M occurs at $$t'=1.000$$ then the correct location of the light must be $$x'=1.000$$, and the other event which shows the light located at $$x'=0.500$$ is just a byproduct of SR randomly generating incorrect coordinates.

----------------------------------------------

Now let's look at a different Minkowski diagram:

7wLGB37.png


Based on your logic, since the co-location of C' and M occurs at $$t=0.866$$ then the correct location of the light must be $$x=0.866$$, and the other event which shows the light located at $$x=1.732$$ is SR randomly generating incorrect coordinates.

----------------------------------------------

But guess what? Those two diagrams are just different ways of drawing the same events:

s5pew1U.png


fL1N5gJ.png


Now do you get it? The answer you claim is wrong can be justified the same way as the answer you claim is correct. Did you forget that SR taught you that all inertial frames are equally valid? Now don't you feel silly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top