SR Issue

[paddoboy]

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

Why don't you abide by your Creationists principals.
Stop the outright lying and misleading and avoiding questions.
I mentioned three things...your maths, your understanding and your Interpretations.
You have a severe problem with all three, as has been legitmatly shown by many others, many times, in many threads.
Again, you are not fooling anyone, except yourself.

 

[arfa brane]

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.

This is why you don't understand what collinear means; you keep using the words "shared" and "common" because you're intentionally abusing what collinear means, in the context of two completely separate frames of reference.

This has been pointed out to you since post #2, where you were told that "where" and "when" are not globally defined, they are frame-dependent. You insist that x = x', while using math that contradicts this.

You are still doing it on this page of the thread. Above, you intentionally leave out which locations are which observer's events; you are saying that each observer can see what the other sees, or a third uber-observer can see what each observer sees (the god of Lorentz transformations). This contradicts nature, you nitwit.

 

[paddoboy]

So, LT does not translates correctly and SR is a failure.

So why don't you take it for proper recognised peer review?
You may even get this year's Nobel Physics prize.

As usual though, I know you will also ignore that, as in reality you have nothing, as your history here and elsewhere has shown.
We all know why you don't chinglu

 

[Neddy Bate]

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.

Wow, so you think you have disproved SR!! LOL

 

[paddoboy]

Wow, so you think you have disproved SR!! LOL

Yep, finally he has admitted it. But his fanatical agenda will always prevent him from admitting his errors in maths, Interpretations and understanding.

 

[chinglu]

This is why you don't understand what collinear means; you keep using the words "shared" and "common" because you're intentionally abusing what collinear means, in the context of two completely separate frames of reference.

This has been pointed out to you since post #2, where you were told that "where" and "when" are not globally defined, they are frame-dependent. You insist that x = x', while using math that contradicts this.

You are still doing it on this page of the thread. Above, you intentionally leave out which locations are which observer's events; you are saying that each observer can see what the other sees, or a third uber-observer can see what each observer sees (the god of Lorentz transformations). This contradicts nature, you nitwit.

If you can refute my math, then do it.

If you can prove they do not share a common x-axis with different markings, then prove it.

 

[arfa brane]

If you can refute my math, then do it.

If you can prove they do not share a common x-axis with different markings, then prove it.

The problem isn't with the math, even the math you've been using. The problem is your insistence that x and x' are "shared, common x-axes", despite what your math, the math on that wiki link, and Einstein's math say about them.

You haven't actually specifically stated how x and x' are part of a common anything. However, it's clear that you believe an observer should see (by the LT "principle") the lightning strike in two places, that the moving observer sees this event in their own frame and sees the same event at coordinates transformed from the stationary frame.

This is complete rubbish, of course.

 

[paddoboy]

If you can refute my math, then do it.

If you can prove they do not share a common x-axis with different markings, then prove it.

Still running from the Important questions re SR chinglu?
Still running from proper supported recognised peer review chinglu?
Still claiming you have invalidated SR chinglu?

 

[arfa brane]

If you can prove they do not share a common x-axis with different markings, then prove it.

Being asked to prove that x and x' aren't shared or common between two frames is ridiculous, since the distinctness of a stationary and a moving frame is an a priori assumption, much like assuming you can define a point in 3-dimensions with a tuple like (x,y,z). It's an axiom of Euclidean geometry, moreover, that any two points in the plane are separated by a distance.

What we have in three dimensions is a stationary frame, which has Cartesian coordinates in 3-space: (x,y,z), and a moving frame with coordinates (x',y',z'); aligning any of the axes so they are collinear just means they point in the same direction and all their points coincide. With the fourth dimension included, the moving frame must slide all its points over the extended axis of the stationary frame; ergo the set of points x and the set of points x' are not the same set, but can 'initially' be at the same location.

The moving set of points doesn't take anything with it from the stationary set; likewise when you pass a fixed object, there isn't anything connecting you to it, that's just crazy shit, bro.

 

[chinglu]

Being asked to prove that x and x' aren't shared or common between two frames is ridiculous, since the distinctness of a stationary and a moving frame is an a priori assumption, much like assuming you can define a point in 3-dimensions with a tuple like (x,y,z). It's an axiom of Euclidean geometry, moreover, that any two points in the plane are separated by a distance.

What we have in three dimensions is a stationary frame, which has Cartesian coordinates in 3-space: (x,y,z), and a moving frame with coordinates (x',y',z'); aligning any of the axes so they are collinear just means they point in the same direction and all their points coincide. With the fourth dimension included, the moving frame must slide all its points over the extended axis of the stationary frame; ergo the set of points x and the set of points x' are not the same set, but can 'initially' be at the same location.

The moving set of points doesn't take anything with it from the stationary set; likewise when you pass a fixed object, there isn't anything connecting you to it, that's just crazy shit, bro.

Well, here is the deal. The x-axis for both frames is one. line. You are claiming it is two lines. So you are wrong.

When I say they share the same x-axis with different markings, that is claiming the same thing as there is only one line for both frame's x-axis and they have different measurement markings on that one line.

Now, can you prove there are actually two lines representing the the x-axis for both frames?

 

[paddoboy]

Well, here is the deal. The x-axis for both frames is one. line. You are claiming it is two lines. So you are wrong.

When I say they share the same x-axis with different markings, that is claiming the same thing as there is only one line for both frame's x-axis and they have different measurement markings on that one line.

Now, can you prove there are actually two lines representing the the x-axis for both frames?

No, wrong again...Even to me what arfa says makes perfect logical sense. The distinction between a stationary and movable frame is logic.
And again, you have proven your inability to support your claim that SR is false, since you runaway and refuse to answer my questions.
And yet you continue with your "SR is wrong crusade" over many forums, many threads, many bans and everyone of them refuted.
bye chinglu.

 

[arfa brane]

Well, here is the deal. The x-axis for both frames is one. line. You are claiming it is two lines. So you are wrong.

You have an impenetrable wall of ignorance wrapped around what you say.

When I say they share the same x-axis with different markings, that is claiming the same thing as there is only one line for both frame's x-axis and they have different measurement markings on that one line.

Look, it's not very hard. Suppose you have two lines which are parallel, and separated by some distance, call this d. Now if one line moves relative to the other, so they stay parallel they obviously are not the same line at any time.

These two lines can be collinear, or lie on the same extended line (this extended line only has to include the two parallel lines), again, even if the two lines are identical in length and are overlaid (d=0) at some point during the motion described, so they lie between the same two points on the extended line, they are never the same line. If they were you would not be able to move one of them away from the other.

Now, can you prove there are actually two lines representing the the x-axis for both frames?

Can you prove you have a brain that isn't fried? How about you trying to prove that x and x' are the same line; how about you show they are the same set of points. This isn't true in Galilean relativity, since x' = x - vt, but I guess you could start there.

 

[chinglu]

You have an impenetrable wall of ignorance wrapped around what you say.Look, it's not very hard. Suppose you have two lines which are parallel, and separated by some distance, call this d. Now if one line moves relative to the other, so they stay parallel they obviously are not the same line at any time.

These two lines can be collinear, or lie on the same extended line (this extended line only has to include the two parallel lines), again, even if the two lines are identical in length and are overlaid (d=0) at some point during the motion described, so they lie between the same two points on the extended line, they are never the same line. If they were you would not be able to move one of them away from the other.
Can you prove you have a brain that isn't fried? How about you trying to prove that x and x' are the same line; how about you show they are the same set of points. This isn't true in Galilean relativity, since x' = x - vt, but I guess you could start there.

OK, you are saying the x-axis of each frame are co-linear but are different lines.

Prove it.

 

[brucep]

You have an impenetrable wall of ignorance wrapped around what you say.Look, it's not very hard. Suppose you have two lines which are parallel, and separated by some distance, call this d. Now if one line moves relative to the other, so they stay parallel they obviously are not the same line at any time.

These two lines can be collinear, or lie on the same extended line (this extended line only has to include the two parallel lines), again, even if the two lines are identical in length and are overlaid (d=0) at some point during the motion described, so they lie between the same two points on the extended line, they are never the same line. If they were you would not be able to move one of them away from the other.
Can you prove you have a brain that isn't fried? How about you trying to prove that x and x' are the same line; how about you show they are the same set of points. This isn't true in Galilean relativity, since x' = x - vt, but I guess you could start there.

Nice one. "....... If they were you would not be able to move one of them away from the other." About as basic as you can get.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Well, here is the deal. The x-axis for both frames is one. line. You are claiming it is two lines. So you are wrong.

False and incorrect. The remote coordinate system is rotated and projected which is exactly why x-prime is marked "prime": it means "altered". In this case it is "bent" and its "shadow" (shorter or longer than x) is projected onto the observation plane. You can see a similar condition by placing a pencil in a glass of water and noticing that the pencil appears "bent". The observation does not match the reality along the pencil! :shrug:

When I say they share the same x-axis with different markings, that is claiming the same thing as there is only one line for both frame's x-axis and they have different measurement markings on that one line.

That's just a statement of your ignorance of relativity, not at all a reflection on how relativity (projection of a rotation) works. As long as you are lost understanding projections you will continue to attack science with ignorance.

Now, can you prove there are actually two lines representing the the x-axis for both frames?

They are not lines. x is the longitudinal axis of the local coordinate system. x' is the projection onto x of the longitudinal axis of the remote frame, after it has been rotated due to velocity and/or change of gravitational gradient, with respect to the inertial frame. This has been explained to you at least 100 times, indicating that you have no capacity to learn, or else you don't even care and are just trolling, ostensibly to shore up the Creationist claim that radiometric dating is too unreliable to be used against Young Earth nonsense.
:spank:

You will never understand the most basic principles of relativity without learning analytic geometry and coordinate transformations. More to the point: you will never learn as long as you immerse yourself in defining nature by proclamation--whatever appeals to you--instead of actually inquiring into Nature the same way science and math literate people do. And that begins with empirical evidence. As long as you remain disinterested in empirical results, you are doomed to the role of a troll.


Source material you would have to at least partly understand to even be qualified to discuss this topic:

(typical sources)

Analytic Geometry

Coordinate transformations

Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction

History of Relativity per Poincaré

Eddington's observation

Einstein, 1905

 

[arfa brane]

So, I think it goes like this: suppose you can see something moving away from you, so it stays "in front" of you at all times, and you identify this "in front" direction as your x axis. You want to be a bit more precise about what this "x axis" is, so you just say its one of the three directions which are perpendicular in your space, and along which you can extend an abstract straight line some arbitrary distance, like with a standard measuring rod . . .

Then you assume the moving object has its x axis aligned with yours, and you label this remote axis x' (so you don't get confused about which one is which).

Well, if this object is moving at a constant velocity (i.e. not accelerating), it will continue in the same direction for as long as no "forces" act on it. In Minkowski space, all velocities are relative, and the speed of light is like a fixed symmetry, in fact just like the symmetry of all straight lines from the apex to the perimeter of a cone. In three dimensions, all the light you see from any direction lies on this cone (it isn't a 2-dimensional surface).

The moving object in front of you with a constant velocity along your extended x axis, is moving along a different space than you are (you are "stationary" in Euclidean space, but moving "upwards" along your timeline where clocks run at a fixed rate for you. This moving x' space is "rotated hyperbolically" in the Minkowski representation of its velocity relative to you and the light you can see.

 

[LaurieAG]

https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

§ 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former

Let us in “stationary” space take two systems of co-ordinates, i.e. two systems, each of three rigid material lines, perpendicular to one another, and issuing from a point. Let the axes of X of the two systems coincide, and their axes of Y and Z respectively be parallel. Let each system be provided with a rigid measuring-rod and a number of clocks, and let the two measuring-rods, and likewise all the clocks of the two systems, be in all respects alike.

 

[rpenner]

Antique treatment, LaurieAG. Einstein is using the old language of absolute space to eventually get around to the point that there is no absolute space or time if the principle of relativity which dates back to Galileo, the principle of inertia which dates back to Newton and the laws of electromagnetism which date back to Maxwell are all to be asserted as useful descriptions of Nature. In that same section, Einstein derives equations that chinglu relies upon in his OP:

$$x'=(x-vt)\gamma$$
$$t'=(t-vx/c^2)\gamma$$

which means that $$x = x_P$$ and $$x' = x'_P$$ don't mean the same thing and $$t = t_P$$ and $$t' = t'_P$$ don't mean the same thing even when $$x'_P=(x_P - v t_P)\gamma$$ and $$t'_P=(t_P - v x_P/c^2)\gamma$$ tell us we are describing the same event P in space-time.

What there is in this situation a (x,t) plane with y=z=0 which corresponds to the (x',t') plane with y'=z'=0. This allows us to avoid the algebra of rotation and 4 dimensions and just concentrate on the algebra and geometry of velocity in 1 space-like dimension and 1 time-like dimension.

 

[wellwisher]

Antique treatment, LaurieAG. Einstein is using the old language of absolute space to eventually get around to the point that there is no absolute space or time if the principle of relativity which dates back to Galileo, the principle of inertia which dates back to Newton and the laws of electromagnetism which date back to Maxwell are all to be asserted as useful descriptions of Nature. In that same section, Einstein derives equations that shingle relies upon in his OP:

Einstein showed the relativity of reference, which has an implication nobody in physics is facing up to. We can't use the earth reference to absolutely define the universe, since this is not an absolute reference, but only one POV. What we see in the universe will not be seen by all references, and therefore it cannot be used to create the correct energy balance for all references. All the physics of the universe, generated by science only works in our reference. If it reflected the absolute nature of the universe, that would imply the earth and our solar system is the absolute reference. Einstein said no.

I have explained this implication of relativity, but a dual standard is in effect. We speak of relative reference and no preferred reference, and then we detail how observations from earth, such as the BB represent the facts of the universe, as though absolute. The BB may work in the earth reference, but not all references will see this same energy balance within their POV universe.

For example, say an alien reference has space-time more contracted. This will cause energy from space to blue shift, relative to earth reference, before it reaches their instruments. That reference will see the universe much hotter and infer maybe younger. What we would need to do is brain storm all the possible references of the universe and take a weighed average to get the energy balance that reflects the average of relativity of universal reference. Or just use the speed of light reference since this is an absolute for all.

 

[origin]

Einstein showed the relativity of reference, which has an implication nobody in physics is facing up to. We can't use the earth reference to absolutely define the universe, since this is not an absolute reference, but only one POV. What we see in the universe will not be seen by all references, and therefore it cannot be used to create the correct energy balance for all references. All the physics of the universe, generated by science only works in our reference. If it reflected the absolute nature of the universe, that would imply the earth and our solar system is the absolute reference. Einstein said no.

I have explained this implication of relativity, but a dual standard is in effect. We speak of relative reference and no preferred reference, and then we detail how observations from earth, such as the BB represent the facts of the universe, as though absolute. The BB may work in the earth reference, but not all references will see this same energy balance within their POV universe.

For example, say an alien reference has space-time more contracted. This will cause energy from space to blue shift, relative to earth reference, before it reaches their instruments. That reference will see the universe much hotter and infer maybe younger. What we would need to do is brain storm all the possible references of the universe and take a weighed average to get the energy balance that reflects the average of relativity of universal reference. Or just use the speed of light reference since this is an absolute for all.

You really should not post your confused made up nonesense in the science section of the forum. There is a fringe section that is specifically set aside for just this sort of thing.