SR Issue

danshawen said:
@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.
Click to expand...

You're going to be endlessly chastised for disrespecting physics and the folks who have done it successfully. So far you fit my delusional crank profile.
 
arfa brane said:
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.
Click to expand...

Look. it is simple. After all these posts no one can refute my correct math. So, whatever you say.
 
rpenner said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, you have proved nothing. Here is the deal. We allow LT to make its decision in the unprimed frame as to where the light pulse is located given the coordinates systems are in the unique configuration such that C' and M are co-located.

We find that M claims the light pulse is at the wrong location along the positive x-axis when compared to the C' light postulate.

This proves LT gets the wrong answer.

Now, this has nothing to do with (x,t) and (x',t'). If so, point out the exact step in the OP where the math is wrong. Do it now.
 
chinglu said:
Now, this has nothing to do with (x,t) and (x',t'). If so, point out the exact step in the OP where the math is wrong. Do it now.
Click to expand...

You have been telling porky pies chinglu.
Your stuff has been refuted, in this thread, in other threads, both here and elsewhere.
You refuse to address those facts, as they prove you are wrong and have been wrong since you started your evangelistic claim against SR.
You continue to ignore my many questions, all concerned with SR, which also shows you are 100% wrong.
You continue your evangelistic like quest without any proper peer review as you always have, which also shows your fear in being shown to be wrong.
And last but not least, the world still depends on SR.....nothing has changed that, least of all your maths.
We operate under its auspices, it is used in everyday and scientific circles everyday.
So convincing one person SR is wrong [yourself] has done absolutely nothing for your evangelistic mission type quest.
 
And we see no change in the pattern at all. Deny anything has been refuted about what colocation of two systems of coordinates entails; deny that there is no "the x-axis" but instead sets of points x and x', which are related but distinct.
chinglu said:
No, you have proved nothing. Here is the deal. We allow LT to make its decision in the unprimed frame as to where the light pulse is located given the coordinates systems are in the unique configuration such that C' and M are co-located.
Click to expand...
Again with the bizarre idea that a transform of coordinates somehow places an event in another frame, and that colocation is somehow a unique event.
We find that M claims the light pulse is at the wrong location along the positive x-axis when compared to the C' light postulate.
Click to expand...
But there is no "the positive x-axis"; this confusion is probably deliberate, and unfortunately for chinglu, as transparent as a pane of glass.
This proves LT gets the wrong answer.
Click to expand...
Again, unfortunately the "proof" is based on the idea that one x-axis exists, which is just not true.
Now, this has nothing to do with (x,t) and (x',t'). If so, point out the exact step in the OP where the math is wrong. Do it now.
Click to expand...
You are living in a world of denial; it has everything to do with (x,t) and (x',t'), the math you've been abusing says just that, except you are blind to this fact.
 
arfa brane said:
You are living in a world of denial; it has everything to do with (x,t) and (x',t'), the math you've been abusing says just that, except you are blind to this fact.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about blindness. Many crackpots might have a psychological problem that prevents them from recognizing something as true: they have a lot invested in their position and they don't wish to deal with the embarrassment of being so wrong. In that sense, it's like stage hypnosis.
 
arfa brane said:
And we see no change in the pattern at all. Deny anything has been refuted about what colocation of two systems of coordinates entails; deny that there is no "the x-axis" but instead sets of points x and x', which are related but distinct.
Again with the bizarre idea that a transform of coordinates somehow places an event in another frame, and that colocation is somehow a unique event.But there is no "the positive x-axis"; this confusion is probably deliberate, and unfortunately for chinglu, as transparent as a pane of glass.
Again, unfortunately the "proof" is based on the idea that one x-axis exists, which is just not true.
You are living in a world of denial; it has everything to do with (x,t) and (x',t'), the math you've been abusing says just that, except you are blind to this fact.
Click to expand...

OK, you are of the position when SR says two observers are co-located, you claim they are not. Well, then you refute SR.

And yes. If light is emitted when the frame origins are common, they both agree at any time the light flash is on the positive x-axis. If this is false as you claim, prove it.
 
That's sort if like erasing the entire theory of SR, and saying it's invalid unless proven. How many times do you have to be given the same answer before you stop asking for it again?

SR is the explanation for the constancy of light observed in moving-media experiments that were searching for the aether. SR has been empirically demonstrated in countless subsequent investigations, but most remarkable for non technical people such as yourself is that it is repeatedly demonstrated in GPS. When are you going to admit that GPS, as currently implemented, would give false fixes on position if spatiotemporal warping were not actually happening as predicted by SR/GR ??

Since the frames diverge, there is no agreement between them about time and length measurement regardless of whether they were temporarily in agreement about space and the span of a time (not just the realtime value). They were never in agreement with realtime once they diverged, even if they converged again. Not until corrections are made.

There is no absolute coordinate system. How many times to have to be told this before you stop asking for it again? "Coordinate system" is what reference frame means. When the reference frames diverge, the coordinate systems diverge. How many times do you have to be told the fundamentals of relativity before you stop asking that they be repeated back to you?
 
Aqueous Id said:
That's sort if like erasing the entire theory of SR, and saying it's invalid unless proven. How many times do you have to be given the same answer before you stop asking for it again?

SR is the explanation for the constancy of light observed in moving-media experiments that were searching for the aether. SR has been empirically demonstrated in countless subsequent investigations, but most remarkable for non technical people such as yourself is that it is repeatedly demonstrated in GPS. When are you going to admit that GPS, as currently implemented, would give false fixes on position if spatiotemporal warping were not actually happening as predicted by SR/GR ??

Since the frames diverge, there is no agreement between them about time and length measurement regardless of whether they were temporarily in agreement about space and the span of a time (not just the realtime value). They were never in agreement with realtime once they diverged, even if they converged again. Not until corrections are made.

There is no absolute coordinate system. How many times to have to be told this before you stop asking for it again? "Coordinate system" is what reference frame means. When the reference frames diverge, the coordinate systems diverge. How many times do you have to be told the fundamentals of relativity before you stop asking that they be repeated back to you?
Click to expand...

How many times must it be explained to you.

The OP math is there and you can't refute it.

So, your statements are null.
 
PhysBang said:
I'm not sure about blindness. Many crackpots might have a psychological problem that prevents them from recognizing something as true: they have a lot invested in their position and they don't wish to deal with the embarrassment of being so wrong. In that sense, it's like stage hypnosis.
Click to expand...

Many people see math that can't be refuted as in the OP and then imagine that it can.

So, prove the OP math is wrong.
 
chinglu said:
How many times must it be explained to you.
Click to expand...
By you? Never. You couldn't pass an SAT section in math and probably not the GED.

The OP math is there and you can't refute it.
Click to expand...
How many times does it have to be explained to you that the math you cut and pasted here (probably after relabeling expressions) does not support your claims?

So, your statements are null.
Click to expand...
No, your claim that you are arguing math is null. You are arguing the stupidest of claims, like absolute coordinate systems. That isn't math. There is no such math. You need only one mathematical expression, to state that the coordinate systems (reference frames) diverge. And that's the one that maps x to x' or vice versa. Once you have posted that (and you did) your claims about absolute coordinate systems is contradicted. Of course you would have to know enough math (and science) to understand that you contradicted yourself. That's why I'm pretty sure you never passed an SAT and probably not a GED either. You certainly never spent 5 minutes in a physics classroom. That's why all the people who bothered to study the subjects you flunked out of are continually asking you how many times do we have to tell you the math you posted contradicts you before you stop asking us to disprove the math you posted?

:spank:
 
chinglu said:
So, where is the OP math wrong? Be specific.
Click to expand...

the problem for me is,
one has to recognize and/or understand the situation in order to know how to solve it.
IMO, it's massively clear, this is not the case.

you continue to graph improperly.
it's that simple.

so again, the OP is no where near the vicinity of proof of anything but the lack of comprehension on ones part.
it's completely incorrect
but in the end,
it doesn't matter,
you are here for reasons,
which is only because no one else will put up with the continuous malfunctioning cognitive psychology of the OP.
 
chinglu said:
OK, you are of the position when SR says two observers are co-located, you claim they are not. Well, then you refute SR.
Click to expand...
You're like a really dumb little kid who said something stupid, then tried to act like it wasn't.
And yes. If light is emitted when the frame origins are common, they both agree at any time the light flash is on the positive x-axis. If this is false as you claim, prove it.
Click to expand...
That's almost true, except for the part about where they agree on something, since you're still clinging to this childish idea about "the" x-axis; everyone with a brain knows there are two of these and they are not the same object, very much unlike what you seem to still believe, which makes you an idiot.

The other things that make everyone think you really are an idiot, is that the math you've been using contradicts what you say about it. Math doesn't lie, and here, you've made the mistake of using math which others have shown you, page after page, does not support your claims about LT, the "light postulate", or anything else. What you think is a carefully constructed argument, supported by "correct math" (an oxymoron), is not supported by the math; you've been posting the refutation of your thesis along with it.

What an idiot
 
arfa brane said:
You're like a really dumb little kid who said something stupid, then tried to act like it wasn't.
That's almost true, except for the part about where they agree on something, since you're still clinging to this childish idea about "the" x-axis; everyone with a brain knows there are two of these and they are not the same object, very much unlike what you seem to still believe, which makes you an idiot.

The other things that make everyone think you really are an idiot, is that the math you've been using contradicts what you say about it. Math doesn't lie, and here, you've made the mistake of using math which others have shown you, page after page, does not support your claims about LT, the "light postulate", or anything else. What you think is a carefully constructed argument, supported by "correct math" (an oxymoron), is not supported by the math; you've been posting the refutation of your thesis along with it.

What an idiot
Click to expand...

There should be some limit to intellectual dishonesty when writing stuff that's posted in this venue. In my opinion. This thread could possibly be setting a record for nonsense posted by one individual in the same thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top