SR Issue

[paddoboy]

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.

It won't stop him...Nothing will...except the bannings and thread closures he has received in the past.
Someone as religiously dogmatic and fanatical as he is, will never stop.
At the very least, the thread should be moved to the alternative section.

 

[chinglu]

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?

How many times must it be explained to you. SR does not work and you have the math in the OP to prove it. Now, can you refute the math of the OP yes or no? Everything above has nothing to do with the OP.

If the math is wrong in the OP , indicated why.

There is some other unknown theory that explains light motion.

 

[chinglu]

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.

This thread has set a record for the number of posts that can't refute the math in the OP.

 

[chinglu]

no,not only is that not proving it but do i not accept that and it's incorrect,
again prove it.

The OP is at the beginning.

It shows if the coordinate systems are in the configuration such that C' and M are co-located, LT claims the light pulse is at a location on the positive x-axis in the primed frame that does not agree with the primed frame light postulate.

 

[chinglu]

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

The OP shows if the coordinate systems are in the configuration such that C' and M are co-located, LT claims the light pulse is at a location on the positive x-axis in the primed frame that does not agree with the primed frame light postulate.

Now, can you refute this yes or no.

 

[chinglu]

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.

If the OP math is wrong, prove it.

 

[Neddy Bate]

It might help if chinglu understood Minkowski diagrams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_diagram

Excerpt:
A particular Minkowski diagram illustrates the result of a Lorentz transformation. The horizontal corresponds to the usual notion of simultaneous events, for a stationary observer at the origin. ... After the Lorentz transformation the new simultaneous events lie on a line inclined by {angle} α to the previous line of simultaneity.

Note that the above describes the planes of simultaneity shown in my Minkowski diagram:

Poor, poor, chinglu.

 

[chinglu]

It might help if chinglu understood Minkowski diagrams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_diagram

Excerpt:
A particular Minkowski diagram illustrates the result of a Lorentz transformation. The horizontal corresponds to the usual notion of simultaneous events, for a stationary observer at the origin. ... After the Lorentz transformation the new simultaneous events lie on a line inclined by {angle} α to the previous line of simultaneity.

Note that the above describes the planes of simultaneity shown in my Minkowski diagram:

Poor, poor, chinglu.

Sure, the relativity of simultaneity says given C' and M are co-located with the coordinate systems in this unique configuration, LT's view of the light flash position in the primed frame will not match that of the light postulate in the primed frame.

So, your diagram proves my point in the OP.

LT gets the answer wrong proving SR fails.

See you seem to think there are two correct answers for the position of the light flash given C' and M are co-located. There is but one.

If the coordinate systems are in the configuration where C' and M are co-located, the light pulse is at only one position on the positive x-axis of the primed frame.

That is where you are getting confused.

 

[paddoboy]

How many times must it be explained to you. SR does not work and you have the math in the OP to prove it. Now, can you refute the math of the OP yes or no? Everything above has nothing to do with the OP.

If the math is wrong in the OP , indicated why.

There is some other unknown theory that explains light motion.

That is a lie and you know it....thus being a lie, you are a liar.
You can ignore my posts as much as you like chinglu, many have shown you are wrong, many times over many threads in many forums.
And of course if you were right, you would not be here, would you?
You would be getting your findings peer reviewed.
That's why you are 100% wrong, and 100% scurrilous behaviour.

 

[krash661]

If the OP math is wrong, prove it.

if the OP math is correct, prove it.

 

[Neddy Bate]

It might help if chinglu understood Minkowski diagrams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_diagram

Excerpt:
A particular Minkowski diagram illustrates the result of a Lorentz transformation. The horizontal corresponds to the usual notion of simultaneous events, for a stationary observer at the origin. ... After the Lorentz transformation the new simultaneous events lie on a line inclined by {angle} α to the previous line of simultaneity.

Note that the above describes the planes of simultaneity shown in my Minkowski diagram:

Poor, poor, chinglu.

Sure, the relativity of simultaneity says given C' and M are co-located with the coordinate systems in this unique configuration, LT's view of the light flash position in the primed frame will not match that of the light postulate in the primed frame.

So, your diagram proves my point in the OP.

LT gets the answer wrong proving SR fails.

See you seem to think there are two correct answers for the position of the light flash given C' and M are co-located. There is but one.

If the coordinate systems are in the configuration where C' and M are co-located, the light pulse is at only one position on the positive x-axis of the primed frame.

That is where you are getting confused.

You have already agreed that my numbers match the math in your OP. You say the correct answer for where C' would say the light is would be x'=1.000, t'=1.000 which is fine.

Observer M would have no problem agreeing that C' would say the light is located at x'=1.000, t'=1.000. Simply consider the inclined plane of simultaneity instead of the horizontal plane. You are not doing that in the OP, even though it is a major part of SR. You just expect the LT to transform x=0.866, t=0.866 to the correct answer directly, but of course it doesn't. The reason is because that event is not simultaneous with the co-location of C' and M, at least not according to the primed frame. But the LT does transform x=1.732, t=1.732 to the correct answer directly, because that is the event which is simultaneous with the co-location of C' and M, according to the primed frame.

 

[chinglu]

You have already agreed that my numbers match the math in your OP. You say the correct answer for where C' would say the light is would be x'=1.000, t'=1.000 which is fine.

Observer M would have no problem agreeing that C' would say the light is located at x'=1.000, t'=1.000. Simply consider the inclined plane of simultaneity instead of the horizontal plane. You are not doing that in the OP, even though it is a major part of SR. You just expect the LT to transform x=0.866, t=0.866 to the correct answer directly, but of course it doesn't. The reason is because that event is not simultaneous with the co-location of C' and M, at least not according to the primed frame. But the LT does transform x=1.732, t=1.732 to the correct answer directly, because that is the event which is simultaneous with the co-location of C' and M, according to the primed frame.

It is amusing correct math is put in this forum. I will not have time to come by here much.

Let's call the co-location event E.

Let's call the C' frame LP light pulse position as P1.

Let's call the LT version of the light pulse position in the primed frame as P2.

So, the primed frame claims E and P1 are simultaneous.

The unprimed frame disagrees. The unprimed frame believes E and P2 are simultaneous.

That is your point.

So, by the relativity of simultaneity, if C' and M are co-located, then the light pulse is at P1 and at P2, which is a contradiction.

Hence, you are quoting ROS as if allows the light pulse at be at P1 and P2 at one time in the primed frame. You see, when C' and M are co-located, there is one time in the primed frame.

Therefore, ROS is the problem not the solution.

 

[chinglu]

if the OP math is correct, prove it.

I did.

 

[chinglu]

That is a lie and you know it....thus being a lie, you are a liar.
You can ignore my posts as much as you like chinglu, many have shown you are wrong, many times over many threads in many forums.
And of course if you were right, you would not be here, would you?
You would be getting your findings peer reviewed.
That's why you are 100% wrong, and 100% scurrilous behaviour.

If I am wrong, prove it with the math of the OP.

 

[Neddy Bate]

Let's call the co-location event E.

Let's call the C' frame LP light pulse position as P1.

Let's call the LT version of the light pulse position in the primed frame as P2.

So, the primed frame claims E and P1 are simultaneous.

The unprimed frame disagrees. The unprimed frame believes E and P2 are simultaneous.

That is your point.

Yes.

Event E has time coordinates t'=1.000 and t=0.866.

Event P1 has time coordinates t'=1.000 and t=1.732. Because t'=1.000 is the coordinate for both P1 and E, they are simultaneous in the primed frame.

Event P2 has time coordinates t'=0.500 and t=0.866. Because t=0.866 is the coordinate for both P2 and E, they are simultaneous in the unprimed frame.

So, by the relativity of simultaneity, if C' and M are co-located, then the light pulse is at P1 and at P2, which is a contradiction.

You have not shown any physical contradiction, or any violation of causality. Both frames agree that P2 happens before P1. Certainly there is no problem with light being at P2 before it gets to P1. You are just objecting to the idea that two frames can disagree, but that is part of SR, and so it certainly does not contradict SR.

Hence, you are quoting ROS as if allows the light pulse at be at P1 and P2 at one time in the primed frame. You see, when C' and M are co-located, there is one time in the primed frame.

Therefore, ROS is the problem not the solution.

ROS is the solution, because the time coordinates of all of the events can easily be sorted out, and there is never any violation of causality. If you could show a violation of causality, you could disprove SR, but of course you cannot, because the LT's are self-consistent.

 

[paddoboy]

If I am wrong, prove it with the math of the OP.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not mathematically inclined, but again, the amount of times you have presented your anti SR/GR face to this forum and others is staggering, considering the amount of observational evidence that we have for time dilation length contraction and the legitimacy of all FoR's.
While you continue denying those observed facts, you will continue to remain ignorant of what the rest of the world now accepts.

 

[chinglu]

You have not shown any physical contradiction, or any violation of causality. Both frames agree that P2 happens before P1. Certainly there is no problem with light being at P2 before it gets to P1. You are just objecting to the idea that two frames can disagree, but that is part of SR, and so it certainly does not contradict SR.

This is all true.

However, if C' and M are co-located, then the light pulse is at P1 and that is the only correct answer. LT on the other hand claims, if C' and M are co-located, then the light pulse is at P2 in the primed frame and that is the wrong answer. This is the part you have never been able to refute. The rest of this stuff is a sideshow.

ROS is the solution, because the time coordinates of all of the events can easily be sorted out, and there is never any violation of causality. If you could show a violation of causality, you could disprove SR, but of course you cannot, because the LT's are self-consistent.

Nope, ROS guarantees if C' and M are co-located then LT gets the answer wrong for the location of the light pulse in the primed frame. LT falsely claims it is at P2 when it is actually at P1.

BTW, we have been discussing Einstein's consistency proof all along. He got it wrong and that is really what we are doing.

And, I have shown a causality violation and have from the beginning. By modus ponens (causality), if C' and M are co-located then the light pulse is at P1 in the primed frame. There is only one correct answer. This is correct causality. But, LT claims if C' and M are co-located the light pulse is at P2 and that is a causality violation. Causality says it is at P1.

 

[chinglu]

For the umpteenth time, I'm not mathematically inclined, but again, the amount of times you have presented your anti SR/GR face to this forum and others is staggering, considering the amount of observational evidence that we have for time dilation length contraction and the legitimacy of all FoR's.
While you continue denying those observed facts, you will continue to remain ignorant of what the rest of the world now accepts.

You really need to understand the math to understand if the experiments actually prove SR.

 

[Neddy Bate]

However, if C' and M are co-located, then the light pulse is at P1 and that is the only correct answer.

My numbers come from d'=1.000 and v=0.500c.

For that case, do you agree that the co-location event E has unprimed frame coordinates x=0.000 and t=0.866?

Do you also agree that, according to the unprimed frame, the light would have to be located at unprimed frame coordinate x=ct=0.866 at time t=0.866, which is event P2?

If so, then you are disagreeing with your own claim, "If C' and M are co-located, then the light pulse is at P1 and that is the only correct answer." Once you acknowledge that there can be more than one answer in SR, you should realise that your argument is not valid.

 

[arfa brane]

However, if C' and M are co-located, then the light pulse is at P1 and that is the only correct answer.

It is the correct answer for one of the observers , and not the correct answer for the other observer. Notice though, that you have previously specified there is only "one observer". illustrating that you don't understand what Einstein was talking about unlike most people who've studied relativity. The observers aren't actually necessary, they are convenient notions, really, and that's all; the important details are the distinct coordinate systems, velocities, and the transformations between them, and a really important one is the constant speed of light and what it means for relative velocities. You obviously don't really understand any of the basic stuff, or you're really good at acting like someone who doesn't.

LT on the other hand claims, if C' and M are co-located, then the light pulse is at P2 in the primed frame and that is the wrong answer. This is the part you have never been able to refute. The rest of this stuff is a sideshow.

You keep claiming that nobody has refuted your math; everybody who has refuted your conclusions using the same math as you (since there is only one way to describe coordinates in four dimensions) knows that the math refutes you and your idiotic conclusions.