OK, show where LT gets the answer right.
SR Issue
- Thread starter chinglu
- Start date
OK, show where LT gets the answer right.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
If for some reason M cannot see the C' clock at the time when C' and M are co-located, then M can apply the LT with his own clock time $$t=d'/c\gamma$$ and location $$x=0$$ and the LT will be very useful in that it will tell M that the time displayed on the C' clock must be:
$$t'=\gamma (t-vx/c^2)$$
Where:
$$t=d'/c\gamma$$
$$x=0$$
Therefore, the time displayed on the C' clock at the time when it is co-located with M must be:
$$t'=\gamma (d'/c\gamma-0)$$
$$t'=\gamma d'/c\gamma$$
$$t'=d'/c$$
And therefore the LT was useful to tell M that C' would place the light at $$x'=ct'=cd'/c=d'$$. And that is the correct answer, with which you agree.
Now please go away, chinglu. Thanks.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Oh, and one last thing, chinglu. For one moment, let's consider two different observers, N and B'. Observer N is located at $$x=d'/\gamma$$ and observer B' is located at $$x'=d'(1-v/c)$$.
The LT says that when those two observers are co-located, their clocks will display $$t=d'/c\gamma$$ and $$t'=d'(1-v/c)/c$$ respectively.
Now, considering that my previous post (above this one) proves that the LT gives the correct coordinates when M and C' are co-located, it must also be true that the LT gives the correct coordinates when N and B' are co-located. Thus, $$(x,y,z,t)=(d'/\gamma,0,0,d'/c\gamma)$$ transforming to the primed frame as $$(x',y',z',t')=(d'(1-v/c),0,0,d'(1-v/c)/c)$$ is proven to be correct, despite your campaign against it.
The LT says that when those two observers are co-located, their clocks will display $$t=d'/c\gamma$$ and $$t'=d'(1-v/c)/c$$ respectively.
Now, considering that my previous post (above this one) proves that the LT gives the correct coordinates when M and C' are co-located, it must also be true that the LT gives the correct coordinates when N and B' are co-located. Thus, $$(x,y,z,t)=(d'/\gamma,0,0,d'/c\gamma)$$ transforming to the primed frame as $$(x',y',z',t')=(d'(1-v/c),0,0,d'(1-v/c)/c)$$ is proven to be correct, despite your campaign against it.
Last edited:
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
And just to put some icing on the cake, here is another way M can solve for the location of the light according to C'. This method uses the plane of simultaneity of $$\Sigma '$$ as shown in this diagram:
The slope of that dashed line is:
$$v/c=0.500$$
So that line can be described by the equation:
$$t = 0.500x + 0.866$$
And the light can be described by the equation
$$t = x$$
Substituting one into the other gives:
$$x = 0.500x + 0.866$$
$$x-0.500x = 0.866$$
$$0.500x = 0.866$$
$$x = 1.732$$
Substituting that result into $$t = x$$ gives:
$$t = 1.732$$
Now M can apply the LT and get the correct answer that chinglu claims it cannot do:
$$x' = \gamma (x - vt)$$
$$x' = 1.154 (1.732 - (0.500*1.732))$$
$$x' = 1.154 (1.732 - 0.866)$$
$$x' = 1.154 (0.866)$$
$$x' = 1.000$$
$$t' = \gamma (t - vx/c^2)$$
$$t' = 1.154 (1.732 - (0.500*1.732))$$
$$t' = 1.154 (1.732 - 0.866)$$
$$t' = 1.154 (0.866)$$
$$t' = 1.000$$
So the LT gives the correct answer when the plane of simultaneity of $$\Sigma '$$ is considered. Poor chinglu...
The slope of that dashed line is:
$$v/c=0.500$$
So that line can be described by the equation:
$$t = 0.500x + 0.866$$
And the light can be described by the equation
$$t = x$$
Substituting one into the other gives:
$$x = 0.500x + 0.866$$
$$x-0.500x = 0.866$$
$$0.500x = 0.866$$
$$x = 1.732$$
Substituting that result into $$t = x$$ gives:
$$t = 1.732$$
Now M can apply the LT and get the correct answer that chinglu claims it cannot do:
$$x' = \gamma (x - vt)$$
$$x' = 1.154 (1.732 - (0.500*1.732))$$
$$x' = 1.154 (1.732 - 0.866)$$
$$x' = 1.154 (0.866)$$
$$x' = 1.000$$
$$t' = \gamma (t - vx/c^2)$$
$$t' = 1.154 (1.732 - (0.500*1.732))$$
$$t' = 1.154 (1.732 - 0.866)$$
$$t' = 1.154 (0.866)$$
$$t' = 1.000$$
So the LT gives the correct answer when the plane of simultaneity of $$\Sigma '$$ is considered. Poor chinglu...
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
@chinglu: sometimes knowledgeable folk, rpenner included, can come across harsher in the written word than in person. I also have that problem. However, he is usually right, as he is in this case. The key phrase:
"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."
Is very true, even if the "light" events (not lightning) were only separated by 1 cm. Only one event can be truly simultaneous in this universe, and that would be a SINGLE event being simultaneous with itself.
For any other two "simultaneous" events in the same inertial rest frame separated by a distance d, the event that is most distant will appear to be the first event from the point of view of a moving frame of reference.
It's almost not worth doing the rather tedious math more than once to discover this, because the reason for the difference (the finite speed of light limit separating events) is pretty obvious.
"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."
Is very true, even if the "light" events (not lightning) were only separated by 1 cm. Only one event can be truly simultaneous in this universe, and that would be a SINGLE event being simultaneous with itself.
For any other two "simultaneous" events in the same inertial rest frame separated by a distance d, the event that is most distant will appear to be the first event from the point of view of a moving frame of reference.
It's almost not worth doing the rather tedious math more than once to discover this, because the reason for the difference (the finite speed of light limit separating events) is pretty obvious.
Not to chinglu it aint!
He absolutely dismisses time dilation and length contraction effects as valid, [despite all evidence to the contrary] and has had other threads closed for continuing to push that crazy position, despite being conclusively shown otherwise.
Idiot wind. You never had a 'nitwit freshman relativity professor'. You're just running your mouth and saying nothing. The likely hood you took a class in relativity is nil.
This is completely wrong. Only the origins satisfy the perfect time dilation equation of $$t'=t/\gamma$$. Other x-axis coordinates like C' start off unsynched with the primed origin from the view of the unprimed frame causing their time to look different from time dilation when they meet the unprimed origin.
Further, you are ignoring the correct math of the OP that RPenner has already certified.
Hence, your analysis is completely wrong in this post.
I am not considering any other math that is not in the OP.
And just to put some icing on the cake, here is another way M can solve for the location of the light according to C'. This method uses the plane of simultaneity of $$\Sigma '$$ as shown in this diagram:
The slope of that dashed line is:
$$v/c=0.500$$
So that line can be described by the equation:
$$t = 0.500x + 0.866$$
And the light can be described by the equation
$$t = x$$
Substituting one into the other gives:
$$x = 0.500x + 0.866$$
$$x-0.500x = 0.866$$
$$0.500x = 0.866$$
$$x = 1.732$$
Substituting that result into $$t = x$$ gives:
$$t = 1.732$$
Now M can apply the LT and get the correct answer that chinglu claims it cannot do:
$$x' = \gamma (x - vt)$$
$$x' = 1.154 (1.732 - (0.500*1.732))$$
$$x' = 1.154 (1.732 - 0.866)$$
$$x' = 1.154 (0.866)$$
$$x' = 1.000$$
$$t' = \gamma (t - vx/c^2)$$
$$t' = 1.154 (1.732 - (0.500*1.732))$$
$$t' = 1.154 (1.732 - 0.866)$$
$$t' = 1.154 (0.866)$$
$$t' = 1.000$$
So the LT gives the correct answer when the plane of simultaneity of $$\Sigma '$$ is considered. Poor chinglu...
By this response, you are claiming the LT results of the OP are false.
It is up to you to prove why these LT results are false.
So, please show why your "math" is correct and the OP calculations under LT are wrong.
Well, here is what we have in the OP.
If C' and M are co-located, that is one time in the primed frame. So, your assertions that different times are going on is false.
Again, check the OP, there is but one time when C' and M are co-located in the primed frame.
At this one time in the primed frame, LT claims the light flash is at some space-time coordinate in the primed frame and the light postulate claims at this same time the light flash is at some different coordinate.
This is a contradiction.
You have to cling to this idea even though it isn't really true that rpenner has agreed with anything you've posted. That is, posted in this thread and all the other threads where you try to discredit Einstein's ideas. And that must be quite a few years.chinglu said:
You need to stick to this idea that someone else has finally verified your math as correct. God, what a boring twit you are.
Of course you aren't. If you did that you would have to be discussing actual special relativity, rather than a screwed up version that fits your pathetic agenda.
By saying what you say, you're telling everyone your math describes the same thing Einstein describes in his paper; it doesn't. You are an arrogant enough twit that you think you can "prevent" others from using their own examples and showing how useless yours is in supporting your pathetic attempts at logical discourse.
One more thing; it's been emotional . . .
You can call me all the names you want.
Can you disprove any math in the OP? The answer is no.
This thread goes on and on and none of you can refute the basic correct math in the OP. It is just you do not like the math results.
I can't understand that.
So you want desperately to believe. but your conclusions from that "correct math" have been shown to be unsupportable. You conclusions that the primed frame "places" the light event at two places is completely wrong. You obviously are enough of a twit that you're still dribbling this rubbish.
The results are not the problem, you twit. The problem is that you don't want to believe your conclusions are wrong, and obviously it doesn't matter how many people tell you that's the problem and show you why it isn't logical at all, you are still there (where you were when you posted your cleverly crafted opening).
You never will; you are an exclusive individual who must face that fact that you will never learn anything from anyone else. I hope you aren't looking for sympathy.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
LOL.
Nice try, chinglu. No one is buying your bullshit.
Nice try, chinglu. No one is buying your bullshit.
Yeah, sure...no sense, no feeling.
As others have told you, your conclusions and interpretations are wrong...100% wrong!
If you were correct, you would not be here. You would be getting your results peer reviewed. By staying here, and posting bullshit everyday, shows 100% that you are wrong and a liar to boot..
You have not got the intestinal fortitude to answer the few SR questions I have put to you....
Your anti SR nonsense has been going on for many years at many forums, one in particular, where you are permanently banned. BTW, that forum still has me as a member, although not active. I prefer this one.
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
@chinglu;
There are lots of "paradoxes" in relativity. Like this thread, people can and will go on and on about the interpretation of the paradoxes. Your particular paradox (inconsistency) seems to be very close to the "pole and barn" paradox first introduced into US relativity textbooks by 'Spacetime Physics', by Taylor and Wheeler (yes, John Wheelsr, a Nobel Laureate American Physicist). In there, you will find the answers to most of the objections you have raised here.
One thing you mentioned that I needed to think about was the "plane of simultaneity", which as far as I know, you have interpreted incorrectly. Points on such a plane outside of the "light cone" of Minkowski space-time physics, might be viewable from other locations (light cones) of other points, but is not viewable at all from within the SINGLE light cone related to a single event, at a single location, which is its vertex. Even points (pairs of other events) that are within the same light cone can be interpreted as simultaneous in one reference frame are not simultaneous in another, or an intersecting one associated with a reference frame that is moving with respect to whatever frame of reference that is chosen inside the first one.
@therestofyou Minkowski was a NINETEETH CENTURY college math professor. Please think about that for a moment and you will understand that while he had a fine array of classical mathematics at his disposal, he had almost nothing by way of physics on which to base his mathematically skewed conclusions. This is the 21st century. Each and every one of you who have complained about my own mid 20th century physics education (which took us to the moon, btw), have access to math, tools, and physics that were not available either to me or to Minkowski.
By endlessly chastising and berating someone like chinglu for failing to grasp the basics of relativity, and doing it with mostly 19th century math, well, it doesn't bode well for how far we have come, through the efforts of folks who are like you, to be sure. You have taught me not to engage in any discussion of Minkowski physics, and I wouldn't venture to do so again even if I had three PhDs in math, physics and relativity. If that's what you wanted, you won. Congratulations, 19th century mathematicians everywhere.
But don't stop with changlu. There's a guy named John Doan whose websites are still up and running on the internet after over 40 years. His particular obsession is with the twin paradox. He won't let it go, no matter how much he is chided about his lack of education and grasp of the simplest ideas of Special Relativity. Then there's David de Hilster's Autodynamics, who swears to be able to derive an equivalent version of relativity with only one observer or reference frame, and rails against any suggestion that neutrinos exist. Lots of crazies out there, but I'm just not all that certain that an obsession with 19th century mathematics is really very much better. That's all I have to say on the subject of this thread and any other having to do with Minkoski, whose name I will never mention again after the next sentence. Have a great Minkowsi rant.
There are lots of "paradoxes" in relativity. Like this thread, people can and will go on and on about the interpretation of the paradoxes. Your particular paradox (inconsistency) seems to be very close to the "pole and barn" paradox first introduced into US relativity textbooks by 'Spacetime Physics', by Taylor and Wheeler (yes, John Wheelsr, a Nobel Laureate American Physicist). In there, you will find the answers to most of the objections you have raised here.
One thing you mentioned that I needed to think about was the "plane of simultaneity", which as far as I know, you have interpreted incorrectly. Points on such a plane outside of the "light cone" of Minkowski space-time physics, might be viewable from other locations (light cones) of other points, but is not viewable at all from within the SINGLE light cone related to a single event, at a single location, which is its vertex. Even points (pairs of other events) that are within the same light cone can be interpreted as simultaneous in one reference frame are not simultaneous in another, or an intersecting one associated with a reference frame that is moving with respect to whatever frame of reference that is chosen inside the first one.
@therestofyou Minkowski was a NINETEETH CENTURY college math professor. Please think about that for a moment and you will understand that while he had a fine array of classical mathematics at his disposal, he had almost nothing by way of physics on which to base his mathematically skewed conclusions. This is the 21st century. Each and every one of you who have complained about my own mid 20th century physics education (which took us to the moon, btw), have access to math, tools, and physics that were not available either to me or to Minkowski.
By endlessly chastising and berating someone like chinglu for failing to grasp the basics of relativity, and doing it with mostly 19th century math, well, it doesn't bode well for how far we have come, through the efforts of folks who are like you, to be sure. You have taught me not to engage in any discussion of Minkowski physics, and I wouldn't venture to do so again even if I had three PhDs in math, physics and relativity. If that's what you wanted, you won. Congratulations, 19th century mathematicians everywhere.
But don't stop with changlu. There's a guy named John Doan whose websites are still up and running on the internet after over 40 years. His particular obsession is with the twin paradox. He won't let it go, no matter how much he is chided about his lack of education and grasp of the simplest ideas of Special Relativity. Then there's David de Hilster's Autodynamics, who swears to be able to derive an equivalent version of relativity with only one observer or reference frame, and rails against any suggestion that neutrinos exist. Lots of crazies out there, but I'm just not all that certain that an obsession with 19th century mathematics is really very much better. That's all I have to say on the subject of this thread and any other having to do with Minkoski, whose name I will never mention again after the next sentence. Have a great Minkowsi rant.
I don't feel it's a personal shortcoming when your next response to chinglu is : You seem to have lumped in chinglu with some specific examples of people you think of as crazy.
I would think this would be obvious from line 8 of chinglu's initial post: This expression shows that t and t' don't have a functional relationship -- but only (x,t) and (x', t') do.
So? Systems of mathematics don't get replaced by newer math as time goes on. Euclidean geometry is still taught. Integer arithmetic is still taught. Likewise, to a very few, the mathematics of pseudo-Riemannian manifolds and their relationship with various coordinate systems are still taught. When the signature is of restricted to type (3,1), the curvature restricted to zero and the coordinate systems limited to Cartesian ones where geodesics are portrayed as affine lines, the math reduces to Minkowski space and the relation between any two allowed coordinate systems is a 10-parameter Poincaré transform. If you want to apply mathematics to do physics, you have the same hurdles no matter how old your mathematics. So a complaint that Minkowski space is "too old" is not a physics argument -- in science we don't pooh-pooh precise and communicable predictions of the behavior of phenomena with vague complaints of "not good enough" -- we demonstrate "not good enough" only by doing science better.
Last edited:
No, this thread goes on and on despite the fact that your math was refuted in another thread years before you started this one.
You need to see a doctor.