SR Issue

[chinglu]

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:

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:

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:

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?

Here is specifically where you failed. The OP asked where is the light in the coordinates of the primed frame. Now, if SR is a consistent theory that works, it will give the correct answer. This is very simple.

So, if C' and M are co-located, SR gives 2 answers on the location of the light flash. Naturally, we can quote ROS and say events in one frame that are simultaneous are not in another.

That is all fine and good. But, the OP asked a very specific question, where is the light in primed frame measurements if C' and M are co-located,.

Unfortunately, SR claims it is at 2 places as the math in the OP demonstrates.

See, here is your task. You need to prove SR says it is at one place since there is only one beam of light if C' and M are co-located.

Therefore, you have confessed, if C' and M are co-located, then SR claims the light is at 2 different locations in primed frame coordinates, which contradicts nature.

 

[chinglu]

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.

After 24 pages, none of you people have refuted the fact that SR claims if C' and M are co-located, then the light is at 2 different locations in primed frame coordinates along the positive x-axis.

So, you have said or accomplished nothing.

 

[chinglu]

Where we are in this thread is simple. No math in the OP has been refuted.

The math in the OP proved, if C' and M are co-located, then the light is at 2 different places on the positive x-axis in primed frame coordinates. This contradicts nature.

Now, I would expect those in the thread to prove if C' and M are co-located, then the light is at 1 place on the positive x-axis in primed frame coordinates.

Why aren't you challengers doing this? In short, everything in this thread agrees with my conclusions since all have submitted to the correct math.

 

[paddoboy]

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?

He wont get it, and never will get it, as he has stated many times in the past, he does not recognise time dilation, length contraction, or FoR's all being as valid as each other.

He'll push it for ever. He will not relent...his religious/creationists agenda and convictions far outweigh any decency and common sense, and logic.


That says it all, and just reinforces what Arfa brain and the forum in general think as follows........

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?

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?).

Again for the record, chinglu has been permanently banned from a science forum before, [Cosmoquest] and has at least two threads closed in this forum, due to his unreasonable, illogical stance and continuing lying, with his opposition to SR.....inspired by mythical creationists beliefs.
Trippy has already threatened to close this thread for the same reasons.

 

[paddoboy]

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?

Yet you continue to be afraid to answer. You claim time dilation, length contraction has nothing to do with the OP.
Let's look at the thread title again....
SR Issue:
So you are admitting that you think time dilation and length contraction do not happen?
You are once again claiming SR is nonsense, and refuse to accept any and all the reasons given, showing you are wrong in the conclusions you draw.
You were also just as adamantly claiming time dilation did not occur in a past thread until you were banned for plain old obstinence. In that thread you were claiming clocks cannot go slower and are [get this everyone] hard wired to the astronomical motions of heavenly bodies.
Even when you were given many many examples of it in action, you remained obstinate, continually doing what you are doing now. That is just repeating over and over, your refusal to accept any reputable knowledge showing you are wrong.
Thankfully, that thread was closed and you were banned.

Once again chinglu, you can deny reality until the cows come home. No one believes you, and life, mainstream science and SR/GR continue to show the way, helping us all, [including you] in solving problems and the running of life in general.

 

[Neddy Bate]

The OP asked where is the light in the coordinates of the primed frame. Now, if SR is a consistent theory that works, it will give the correct answer. This is very simple.

What if someone were to ask, "Where the is the light in the coordinates of the unprimed frame?"

Since SR is a consistent theory that does work, it will give the correct answer which only you claim is incorrect. This is very simple.

Relativity gives us both coordinate sets, because that's its whole purpose. A lesson you failed to grasp, apparently.

 

[paddoboy]

I would like to help our little mathematical minion chinglu, so I found this.
It may get him on the right track, instead of the misinterpreted rubbish he is posting at present.

http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/suss...-relativity/#ln-simultaneity-in-moving-frames

Similar type of issue ching has raised.


http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/suss...-relativity/#ln-simultaneity-in-moving-frames

http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/suss...cial-relativity/#ln-breakdown-of-simultaneity


http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/suss...-relativity/#ln-simultaneity-in-moving-frames

 

[arfa brane]

chinglu is so deluded or desperate that he can't see his "sharing a common x-axis" contradicts nature (the very thing he's trying to flog about his extremely poor grasp of special relativity).

If two frames of reference have an axis in common, they are the same frame of reference. If two frames can share an axis, why don't all frames have a common axis?

The answer is simple: independent objects have independent motion, they aren't joined together if they have a velocity in the same direction along the same local axis. This absolutely insane idea that you have motion between two frames, but they have an axis "in common" so there is only one x-axis, contradicts what we see.

I think that has to be pretty close to insanity. I suspect that I and everyone else trying to get through to chinglu just won't ever do this thing, he's one loco hombre, muchachos.

 

[paddoboy]

The answer is simple: independent objects have independent motion, they aren't joined together if they have a velocity in the same direction along the same local axis. This absolutely insane idea that you have motion between two frames, but they have an axis "in common" so there is only one x-axis, contradicts what we see.

I think that has to be pretty close to insanity. .[/I]

Yep, agreed insane, but do you remember the thread at least 6 months or more ago, where he claimed clocks were unable to go slow, and were somehow magically tied to or hard wired to the motions of the Earth and Sun.
Your insanity remark high lights for affliction that most anti SR and cosmology nuts have, in not being able to, or not wanting to, recognise the obvious.

 

[paddoboy]

chinglu, I mentioned a while back in this thread about how you have been banned for claiming SR is wrong without any valid evidence to support those silly claims.
I also mentioned that lacking necessary IT skills, I was not able to find the threads here or elswhere.
You then denied that you had been banned and offered some poor excuse.
Guess what? I have found the threads that got you permanently banned in Cosmoquest, where you went under the name of "chinglu1998"
Two of those threads you started yourself were titled
"Special Relativity is wrong because time dilation is false."
The thread was closed after 5 pages with the following comments.....
>>>>>>
"Okay, this nonsense has gone on long enough.
Chinglu, you cannot synchronise clock when they are not at the same location, like your 1/5 and -1/5.
When you do macaw's calculation for t' = t, you use suddenly the Lorentz transform for whatever reason.
This is not going anywhere, because you just keep on repeating what you said, whilst not taking into account what other members are trying to explain to you. Also, in one sentence you seem to agree with someone, and then dismiss it in the second part of the sentence. This may be a language problem (I assume your native language is Chinese), but still, you need to be more careful with what you write.
Thread closed."
>>>>>>>

Another was entitled "Time Dilation and Negative Coordinates in Moving Frame"
That thread was closed after 1 page with the following comments....

<<<<<<
" Basically chinglu wants to move the origin (in this whole discussion) to (now) -7/8, that is all. And then because he does not take into account he has shifted the origin, and thus should make more translations comes up with a "nice" example of numerology, where, when you put in numbers you will find either 1=1 or you find 1=2.

I fail to see the reason for this thread, it is just a rehash of the ATM that was produced.
Thread closed.
chinglu you will NOT start another thread on this non-topic as you do not seem willing to learn actually from the answers that are given."
>>>>>>>>>

All in all you started six threads, all attempting to discredit SR, and all were closed.

Now I'm not giving links to that Information just yet, and not until at least I run it by a mod.
Are you still going to deny you are trying to invalidate SR and that you were permanently banned?
Is this why you refuse to answer my previous questions?

 

[chinglu]

What if someone were to ask, "Where the is the light in the coordinates of the unprimed frame?"

Since SR is a consistent theory that does work, it will give the correct answer which only you claim is incorrect. This is very simple.

Relativity gives us both coordinate sets, because that's its whole purpose. A lesson you failed to grasp, apparently.

This has been explained to you over and over.

If C' and M are co-located, the truth for the primed frame based on the light postulate is that the light flash is at $$(d',0,0,d'/c)$$.

LT is supposed to correctly translate the one light flash from the unprimed frame light postulate to the primed frame light postulate. That is its job.

However, If C' and M are co-located, LT claims the light flash is located at $$(d'(1-v/c),0,0,d'(1-v/c)/c)$$.

This is completely false and LT got the wrong answer.

It is that simple.

If you actually think LT got it right if C' and M are co-located, simply explain why it got the wrong answer and yet it is right.

 

[chinglu]

chinglu is so deluded or desperate that he can't see his "sharing a common x-axis" contradicts nature (the very thing he's trying to flog about his extremely poor grasp of special relativity).

If two frames of reference have an axis in common, they are the same frame of reference. If two frames can share an axis, why don't all frames have a common axis?

The answer is simple: independent objects have independent motion, they aren't joined together if they have a velocity in the same direction along the same local axis. This absolutely insane idea that you have motion between two frames, but they have an axis "in common" so there is only one x-axis, contradicts what we see.

I think that has to be pretty close to insanity. I suspect that I and everyone else trying to get through to chinglu just won't ever do this thing, he's one loco hombre, muchachos.

On the common axis thing that continues to haunt you, read the following article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorent...ormation_for_frames_in_standard_configuration

I hope it helps. No one else is disputing this.

 

[chinglu]

chinglu, I mentioned a while back in this thread about how you have been banned for claiming SR is wrong without any valid evidence to support those silly claims.
I also mentioned that lacking necessary IT skills, I was not able to find the threads here or elswhere.
You then denied that you had been banned and offered some poor excuse.
Guess what? I have found the threads that got you permanently banned in Cosmoquest, where you went under the name of "chinglu1998"
Two of those threads you started yourself were titled
"Special Relativity is wrong because time dilation is false."
The thread was closed after 5 pages with the following comments.....
>>>>>>
"Okay, this nonsense has gone on long enough.
Chinglu, you cannot synchronise clock when they are not at the same location, like your 1/5 and -1/5.
When you do macaw's calculation for t' = t, you use suddenly the Lorentz transform for whatever reason.
This is not going anywhere, because you just keep on repeating what you said, whilst not taking into account what other members are trying to explain to you. Also, in one sentence you seem to agree with someone, and then dismiss it in the second part of the sentence. This may be a language problem (I assume your native language is Chinese), but still, you need to be more careful with what you write.
Thread closed."
>>>>>>>

Another was entitled "Time Dilation and Negative Coordinates in Moving Frame"
That thread was closed after 1 page with the following comments....

<<<<<<
" Basically chinglu wants to move the origin (in this whole discussion) to (now) -7/8, that is all. And then because he does not take into account he has shifted the origin, and thus should make more translations comes up with a "nice" example of numerology, where, when you put in numbers you will find either 1=1 or you find 1=2.

I fail to see the reason for this thread, it is just a rehash of the ATM that was produced.
Thread closed.
chinglu you will NOT start another thread on this non-topic as you do not seem willing to learn actually from the answers that are given."
>>>>>>>>>

All in all you started six threads, all attempting to discredit SR, and all were closed.

Now I'm not giving links to that Information just yet, and not until at least I run it by a mod.
Are you still going to deny you are trying to invalidate SR and that you were permanently banned?
Is this why you refuse to answer my previous questions?

I can't find anywhere where you can mathematically refute the OP.

Did I miss it or are you factually unable to refute the correct math?

 

[arfa brane]

On the common axis thing that continues to haunt you, read the following article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz..._configuration

I hope it helps. No one else is disputing this.

If you want to use that link as some kind of authority to support your idea that x and x' are "shared common x-axes", then explain why it says in plain math: $$ x'\,=\, \gamma(x-vt) $$.

This equation seems to say, nay, rather that x and x' are separate quantities; actually as we know, straight lines which are not parallel in the four dimensions, and not shared or common to some uberstructure. The article also has this to say about the coordinates being referred to:

Consider two observers O and O′, each using their own Cartesian coordinate system to measure space and time intervals. O uses (t, x, y, z) and O′ uses (t′, x′, y′, z′). Assume further that the coordinate systems are oriented so that, in 3 dimensions, the x-axis and the x′-axis are collinear, the y-axis is parallel to the y′-axis, and the z-axis parallel to the z′-axis.

.

Note that word: collinear, you don't know what it means, do you?

 

[krash661]

Feynman: Knowing versus Understanding
[video=youtube;NM-zWTU7X-k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k&list=UUD0PbM7FbHZV-7u_OWQgHgw&index=8[/video]
Feynman: Mathematicians versus Physicists
[video=youtube;obCjODeoLVw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCjODeoLVw&list=UUD0PbM7FbHZV-7u_OWQgHgw[/video]

 

[Neddy Bate]

LT is supposed to correctly translate the one light flash from the unprimed frame light postulate to the primed frame light postulate. That is its job.

The job of the LT is to transform the coordinates of an event from one frame to another. That is all the LT does, day and night, so it is always doing its job. You are the one who is not doing your job, which is to understand what the transformation means.

 

[paddoboy]

I can't find anywhere where you can mathematically refute the OP.

Did I miss it or are you factually unable to refute the correct math?

chinglu, you keep mentioning that. And I keep telling you, you are correct in that I personally cannot refute your maths. And I also keep telling you that many others here, have refuted your Interpretations and understandings of it.
I'm not afraid to admit my mathematical limitations and understandings.
You though seem to be afraid to answer questions all relating to SR.

And if you were correct in your maths, in your understandings of it, and in your Interpretations of the results, why are you here?
Why are you not getting it properly peer reviewed?
You would in actual fact be invalidating SR. So again, being so sure you are correct in all aspects, maths, interpretation, and understanding, why are you here?

 

[chinglu]

If you want to use that link as some kind of authority to support your idea that x and x' are "shared common x-axes", then explain why it says in plain math: $$ x'\,=\, \gamma(x-vt) $$.

This equation seems to say, nay, rather that x and x' are separate quantities; actually as we know, straight lines which are not parallel in the four dimensions, and not shared or common to some uberstructure. The article also has this to say about the coordinates being referred to:.

Note that word: collinear, you don't know what it means, do you?

OK, I said they share the same x axis (parallel) with different markings. That is the definition of collinear.

What is your problem?

 

[chinglu]

The job of the LT is to transform the coordinates of an event from one frame to another. That is all the LT does, day and night, so it is always doing its job. You are the one who is not doing your job, which is to understand what the transformation means.

Good, the job of LT is to transform the coordinates of an event from one frame to another, but such that the other frame agrees the translation is correct. You seem to imply one frame can translate pure false trash, which is the sign of a failed theory.

Now, if the coordinate systems are in the configuration such that C' and M are co-located, the primed frame says the light is at $$(d',0,0,d'/c)$$.

On the other hand, if the coordinate systems are in the configuration such that C' and M are co-located, the unprimed frame claims the light is at $$(d'(1-v/c),0,0,d'(1-v/c)/c)$$ in the primed frame, which is completely wrong. So, LT does not translates correctly and SR is a failure.

 

[chinglu]

chinglu, you keep mentioning that. And I keep telling you, you are correct in that I personally cannot refute your maths. And I also keep telling you that many others here, have refuted your Interpretations and understandings of it.
I'm not afraid to admit my mathematical limitations and understandings.
You though seem to be afraid to answer questions all relating to SR.

And if you were correct in your maths, in your understandings of it, and in your Interpretations of the results, why are you here?
Why are you not getting it properly peer reviewed?
You would in actual fact be invalidating SR. So again, being so sure you are correct in all aspects, maths, interpretation, and understanding, why are you here?

OK, you can't refute my math. Neither can anyone else.