SR Issue

[chinglu]

So you prefer not to answer?
The forum then can obviously make its own objective conclusions.
That your mathematical interpretations and conclusions are simply wrong, and therefor SR stands as it has for more than a 100 years, unchallenged, and part and parcel of everyday life.

What are your questions in spite of my answers.

 

[chinglu]

Well, I certainly haven't taken that position.
I've said you need two observers in relative motion plus a universe in which simultaneous events occur, and that a single event is sufficient. But this "single" event is different for each observer so, . . . I should say it's a pair of events, connected by a velocity transform.

'
Please explains this specifically in the context of the OP and the co-location event C' and M.
'

This is nonsensical. Observers decide what the times on their clocks are, these are again "connected" by Lorentz transform. That doesn't mean if you know the time on one clock (i.e. you are that observer), then you know the time on the other clock by "LT".

Except this single event is a different event for each observer; more exactly this colocation event has a single location, but two observer-dependent times.

Who care if the times are different on the clocks for C' and M. That was admitted in the OP. So, at a single location of an event, it is most likely that the two clocks have different times.


Your post is irrelevant.

 

[paddoboy]

This is nonsensical. Observers decide what the times on their clocks are, these are again "connected" by Lorentz transform. That doesn't mean if you know the time on one clock (i.e. you are that observer), then you know the time on the other clock by "LT".

chinglu, going on other threads, does not accept Lorentz contraction or time dilation, as shown in his own links...
https://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/lorentz.html

 

[paddoboy]

blunderbus

 

[paddoboy]

What are your questions in spite of my answers.

You have not answered them.
But anyway, being a nice bloke, here it is again.....

Chinglu, as you know, I cannot validate or invalidate your maths. But I do observe two or three reasonably well respected experts doing that anyway.
So please, don't ask me to move on, when I ask a couple of questions relevant to SR, which is afterall what your mathematical problem is concerned with.
OK, now that is out of the way, here are the questions chinglu.

You have participated in many threads on SR and in all of those threads you have claimed SR to be false.
Correct? Good.
Taking that into consideration, isn't it reasonable of me to assume that this supposed mathematical problem you present, [which experts have shown how you have drawn the wrong conclusion] is for the express purpose of invalidating SR?
Logically and objectively, I see the answer to both questions as yes.
So my next question is why?...Why are you so anti SR/GR, when the whole world accepts and operates under those assumptions. Why do you defy and misinterpret evidence that even school children could interpret correctly.

Is it some sort of Creationist/God/Deity agenda?
Do you see SR and consequently GR and the BB, plus the standard acceptable cosmological model, as making this mythical God/Deity defunct?

Your maths has been shown to be in error, and the associated assumptions you make with it.
But you refuse to accept that, just as you have continued to refuse to accept time dilation and length contraction as real and frame dependant.
Again,to clarify your position re SR, I ask, are you claiming SR is false?
The answer to that question is the crux of the matter, and probably will decide whether this thread is moved to alternative section.
And has been shown, the answer is a resounding yes!

 

[Aqueous Id]

chinglu, going on other threads, does not accept Lorentz contraction or time dilation, as shown in his own links...
https://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/lorentz.html

Recently he's been on a roll against the science behind abiogenesis. And in all of these rants he pretends to know something about these highly technical and counterintuitive special subjects.

By contrast you've made no claims to mastering advanced topics in science and yet you understand there is something called a Lorenz transformation. And of course that's not only correct, it's the key.

 

[paddoboy]

By contrast you've made no claims to mastering advanced topics in science and yet you understand there is something called a Lorenz transformation. And of course that's not only correct, it's the key.

Thanks AId......I do have problems though ....[tic mode on]
I read nearly exclusively reputable stuff from reputable sources.....
I don't have delusions of grandeur, or tall poppy syndrome, although I sometimes do have speculative ideas that don't quite align with mainstream......
I don't swallow conspiracy nonsense and don't have any need to see the devil within established scientific circles.....
I see creationists and the like as a form of evil that some would like to push on our kids and schools.....

 

[Neddy Bate]

I don't really understand your request. There are three points along X, three along X' and these must have three values. If you're asking what they are, well that's arbitrary and depends on units of distance. The thing to realise is that the diagram describes a geometry which every point in spacetime must have, regardless of the units of time or distance we apply. I would guesstimate the velocity of the moving frame to be about 1/3 of c, given the size of the angle subtended by t,t'.

Sorry, I thought you had created the diagram. As such, I was asking what numerical values for x, x', t, t' and v you had used.

Here is a question for you: why are there no events on the line labeled "v = c" in the Minkowski diagram? Did they forget to put some there maybe, or is it possible to locate events along this line, and why or why not?

The line labeled v=c is the worldline of a ray of light. So there can indeed be events along that line. For example, a photon emitted at the origin(s) of the two systems would be one event. Choose a point on the line labeled v=c where you want the photon to be absorbed, and that would be another event.

 

[arfa brane]

The line labeled v=c is the worldline of a ray of light. So there can indeed be events along that line. For example, a photon emitted at the origin(s) of the two systems would be one event. Choose a point on the line labeled v=c where you want the photon to be absorbed, and that would be another event.

Hmm. I don't know what to say again.
I could say you're wrong because light can't have coordinates. Or you're wrong because none of the hyperbolas intersect the line v = c, and events have to lie on a straight line like X if you want them to have a spatial component (along this line recall that t = 0 for all events). The events along t and t' lie in the future of both observer's frames, so for both observers these events contain no information--they haven't occured yet.

You can't give any of the points on v = c any time or space coordinates, prosaically you can't see light in motion so you can't tell where it is or where it's coming from until it gets to you. I'm going out on a bit of a limb by saying the locus of points v = c is asymptotically closed to observers, and does not map to any observable.

 

[Neddy Bate]

Hmm. I don't know what to say again.
I could say you're wrong because light can't have coordinates. Or you're wrong because none of the hyperbolas intersect the line v = c, and events have to lie on a straight line like X if you want them to have a spatial component (along this line recall that t = 0 for all events). The events along t and t' lie in the future of both observer's frames, so for both observers these events contain no information--they haven't occured yet.

You can't give any of the points on v = c any time or space coordinates, prosaically you can't see light in motion so you can't tell where it is or where it's coming from until it gets to you. I'm going out on a bit of a limb by saying the locus of points v = c is asymptotically closed to observers, and does not map to any observable.

Let the scale of the x axis be such that the distance from x=0 to x=1 is one light-year.

First event:
Light is emitted at the spacial location x=0

Second event:
Light is absorbed at x=1

What is the time elapsed in the (x,t) system? One year. In your post above, you are trying to convince me that I cannot do what I have just done with a few keystrokes. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying.

 

[arfa brane]

Let the scale of the x axis be such that the distance from x=0 to x=1 is one light-year.

Ok, no problem.

First event:
Light is emitted at the spacial location x=0

Ok, but to be an event it has to be observable, so someone has to know that light is emitted at t = 0.

Second event:
Light is absorbed at x=1

Again, this has to be information that someone has observed, or that someone knows someone else will observe.

What is the time elapsed in the (x,t) system? One year.

This is where your argument unravels. To know the elapsed time, the observer at t = 0 will have to get the information from the other observer at 1 light year distance. If you suppose the remote observer is an unknown distance away, so you don't know their location, all of a sudden you have a problem with what you know and don't know, and your example doesn't have generality.

In your post above, you are trying to convince me that I cannot do what I have just done with a few keystrokes. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying.

Or maybe you haven't done what you think you've done. You haven't located any events on v = c, for one thing.

 

[Neddy Bate]

Ok, but to be an event it has to be observable, so someone has to know that light is emitted at t = 0.

The guy who turned on the torch was there to see the light emitted, surely?

 

[humbleteleskop]

Ok, no problem.
Ok, but to be an event it has to be observable, so someone has to know that light is emitted at t = 0.

Again, this has to be information that someone has observed, or that someone knows someone else will observe.

What you guys really need here is an actual experiment and actual measurement data, so all of you finally start talking about the same thing.

This is where your argument unravels. To know the elapsed time, the observer at t = 0 will have to get the information from the other observer at 1 light year distance. If you suppose the remote observer is an unknown distance away, so you don't know their location, all of a sudden you have a problem with what you know and don't know, and your example doesn't have generality.

It's much simpler to have only one observer. How about a single photon emitter, a photo detector 1 meter away, and a clock located at the same distance between the two? The clock is the observer connected with wires to both the emitter and the detector, it records the time when it gets a signal from the emitter that a photon is emitted, and it records the second time when it gets a signal from the photo detector that a photon is received.

 

[krash661]

arfa brane ,
don't worry about it.
there's no point
(shakes head)

 

[arfa brane]

The question chinglu can't seem to understand the answer to, as to why an event--a flash of light--is different for observers in different frames, has a fairly obvious answer: they have different views of simultaneous events. This is described by the X and X' axes in the diagram.

As to why you can't give light any coordinates. Suppose you have a source of light at the origin which is switched on at t = 0, light propagates in all directions as a spherical wavefront. Where is the wavefront located after some arbitrary amount of time has elapsed? The wavefront will move along the future lightcone defined at the origin, which means it will intersect the lightcone in two dimensions as a circle of light expanding outward. So where is the wavefront located?

Then there's the geometry of Minkoswki space which is based on velocities. The line or axis X has a perpendicular axis, t. So X corresponds to t = 0 and you have spatially separated events (three are shown in the diagram). The light (or whatever information) has already reached you along (or inside) the past lightcone, so along X, the speed of light is irrelevant, it may as well be infinite because time is 'suppressed'. Distance in this geometry is defined by differences in time (between events), and there is no "time distance" between simultaneous events.

What if the source can emit single photons? Can these be given a definite location on the lightcone so you know their direction of propagation? Or is the direction given by some kind of probability relation and equally likely to be propagating in any direction?
And here is the pesky thing again:

 

[chinglu]

The question chinglu can't seem to understand the answer to, as to why an event--a flash of light--is different for observers in different frames, has a fairly obvious answer: they have different views of simultaneous events. This is described by the X and X' axes in the diagram.

As to why you can't give light any coordinates.

Einstein will correct your ignorance.

At the time $$t=\tau=0$$, when the origin of the co-ordinates is common to the two systems, let a spherical wave be emitted therefrom, and be propagated with the velocity c in system K. If (x, y, z) be a point just attained by this wave, then

$$x^2+y^2+z^2=c^2t^2$$
Transforming this equation with the aid of our equations of transformation we obtain after a simple calculation

$$x'^2+y'^2+z'^2=c^2t'^2$$

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

Therefore, given a space-time coordinate of light in the unprimed frame, you can give its space-time location in the primed frame.


That leads us back to the problem I presented above.

Everyone agrees with the distance the lightning is in the M' frame from C' and M.

I gave the distance in M frame calculations for the M' frame distance from C' and M. If this is not correct, then instead of personal insults, supply the answer.

 

[chinglu]

Recently he's been on a roll against the science behind abiogenesis. And in all of these rants he pretends to know something about these highly technical and counterintuitive special subjects.

By contrast you've made no claims to mastering advanced topics in science and yet you understand there is something called a Lorenz transformation. And of course that's not only correct, it's the key.

I will take any questions about that subject over there.

 

[chinglu]

You have not answered them.
But anyway, being a nice bloke, here it is again.....

My math has not been shown to be in error. Otherwise, point it out.

Further, you agree that you do not understand the math. So what would make you think you can judge an error in the math? Please answer.

 

[paddoboy]

You have not answered my relevant questions at post 145.
You have yet to correct the error in your assumptions pointed out by rpenner also.
Which means that your maths is faulty, and SR remains as observationally validated as any model can be.

 

[chinglu]

You have not answered my relevant questions at post 145.
You have yet to correct the error in your assumptions pointed out by rpenner also.
Which means that your maths is faulty, and SR remains as observationally validated as any model can be.

RPenner claimed that the co-location event is subject to ROS. I proved that to be false. So, please provide the specific math if you think I am wrong.

Be specific.