rpenner showed your maths and assumptions as false...100%
The readers of this thread can see how you are avoiding answering my relevant questions.
It is obvious then that once again, you have failed to falsify SR, and it remains rock solid.
SR Issue
- Thread starter chinglu
- Start date
rpenner showed your maths and assumptions as false...100%
The readers of this thread can see how you are avoiding answering my relevant questions.
It is obvious then that once again, you have failed to falsify SR, and it remains rock solid.
Prove your case. False allegations are not respected.
first(which i'm sure you will side step),
prove it.....
second,
this is no where near the vicinity of being correct.
why do you continue to make these obvious fictitious comments ?
why are you not banned yet?
You are unable, to answer my questions in post 145?
So, you agree then finally, that SR, and by extension, GR are rock solid observationally correct models?
Good.
These are very strong statements and I suppose you can support them with proof.
This link proves that SR contends the lightning strike is 2 different distances from C' and M in M' frame coordinates.
Now, use your strong statements to refute this post.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141840-SR-Issue&p=3203540&viewfull=1#post3203540
Refute this simple math to support your conclusions.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141840-SR-Issue&p=3203540&viewfull=1#post3203540
i do not accept that,
please prove it.
Don't know what to tell you. The equations are in the post. If you have a problem with them, why not share with all of us why.
Sorry chinglu, you want to avoid my questions, OK. Ask your church, or deity for advice. They may help.
SR remains as rock solid, and as outstandingly predictable as it always has been.
You must accept that to obtain any credibility.
Sorry chinglu, you want to avoid my questions, OK. Ask your church, or deity for advice. They may help.
SR remains as rock solid, and as outstandingly predictable as it always has been.
You must accept that to obtain any credibility.
Anyway, I provided a link with math.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141840-SR-Issue&p=3203540&viewfull=1#post3203540
Do you have a problem with this?
i do not accept that please,
prove it.
you continue to graph improperly,
which lead to what rpenner stated,
" you improperly confuse lines j and k and therefore confuse events Q and R. "
it was very important to listen when rpenner started with this statement,
" In addition to writing lines as y=mx+b "
What chinglu hasn't realised is that you can give light coordinates only if you give a light-propagation event some coordinates, which is just what Einstein does in his paper.
Include the fact that light has a constant speed for all observers in relative motion, and that you have a reliable clock, you can calculate where the light is at some time after the initial event. Likewise, you can calculate where light has come from, but you have to detect it, put another way, you can't see light moving, only "leaving or arriving".
So if you know you emitted some light at (t,x,y,z), you can calculate the size of the expanding wavefront at t' and the distance it is from you; if you know there is another observer and where they are, you also know when they will see this light according to your own clock.
The only way to give light coordinates in any sense of the word is to generate some or 'absorb' some, and then these coordinates are only fixed by your local position. In Minkowski space 'distance' is not Euclidean; one needs to understand why light has no proper time in this geometry.
Of course, light moves through space "in" time in the Euclidean sense where space and time are both positive, but in Minkowski spacetime, you subtract the positive spatial components from the time component (or vice-versa), and the geometry is "decided by" the constancy of lightspeed which translates to a line with a slope of 1 (or 45[sup]o[/sup] from horizontal); so it becomes "one light second per second".
You don't have to generate a massive particle to give it some coordinates, now do you?
Include the fact that light has a constant speed for all observers in relative motion, and that you have a reliable clock, you can calculate where the light is at some time after the initial event. Likewise, you can calculate where light has come from, but you have to detect it, put another way, you can't see light moving, only "leaving or arriving".
So if you know you emitted some light at (t,x,y,z), you can calculate the size of the expanding wavefront at t' and the distance it is from you; if you know there is another observer and where they are, you also know when they will see this light according to your own clock.
The only way to give light coordinates in any sense of the word is to generate some or 'absorb' some, and then these coordinates are only fixed by your local position. In Minkowski space 'distance' is not Euclidean; one needs to understand why light has no proper time in this geometry.
Of course, light moves through space "in" time in the Euclidean sense where space and time are both positive, but in Minkowski spacetime, you subtract the positive spatial components from the time component (or vice-versa), and the geometry is "decided by" the constancy of lightspeed which translates to a line with a slope of 1 (or 45[sup]o[/sup] from horizontal); so it becomes "one light second per second".
You don't have to generate a massive particle to give it some coordinates, now do you?
So what part of this post is false? It looks like it will be easy for you.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141840-SR-Issue&p=3203540&viewfull=1#post3203540
By refusing to answer my questions you have admitted that you are in error, and SR is rock solid,...so the obvious question is what part of arfabrane's post is false?
Can you answer or not?
Here is the link. Is it wrong?
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141840-SR-Issue&p=3203540&viewfull=1#post3203540
If there wasn't a definite location a lot of equations depending on the consistency of the speed of light would be flawed. It is not to be a question, it is given by definition, because it is confirmed by experiments.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Of course you can give light coordinates. A photon is emitted at (x,t)=(0,0) and absorbed at (x,t)=(6,6). If x=6 is in units of light-years, then t=6 is in units of years. If x=6 is in units of light-seconds, then t=6 is in units of seconds. Easy.
An interactive Minkowski diagram can be found online here http://www.trell.org/div/minkowski.html. For some reason they chose to use d instead of x as the spacial coordinate.
You can make a Minkowski diagram showing the exact coordinates I just gave you:
1. Notice that the event lands exactly on the 45 degree yellow line representing v=c, which is the worldline for a ray of light, just as I explained to you.
2. Notice that the event transforms to x' and t' using straight lines, not the curved lines shown in the diagram you keep posting.
Yes, you yourself have shown it to be wrong by not answering relevant questions.
And rpenner and arfabrane have elaborated on your errors in calcs and assumptions.
SR stands as rock solid as it has since 1905.
Not as easy as you think. What you're really doing there is mapping two systems of coordinates to the constant speed of light.Neddy BAte said:
Yes that's right, the worldlines of all rays of light lie on a nullcone. The only way to give light some coordinates is to give emission and absorption events those coordinates, which is what you've done.
That's because both frames see the same speed of light; the moving frame sees their own time and space as being the same shape (perpendicular--squares look square) as the frame at rest which sees the moving frame as a different shape (squares look like they are "squeezed" into diamond shapes), both frames 'project' their coordinate systems onto v = c. The curved lines are between the t,t' and d,d' lines in your diagram.
It is hard to think outside of our usual notions of "positive" time and distance, i.e. Euclidean geometry.
We have this strong notion that time "moves forward", rather than backward, is one-dimensional and so forth. "Linear and predictable", like a ticking clock.
I can't type words in negative time (although physics says there is no reason I can't) and "negative space" doesn't make much sense either.
But Minkowski space is fundamentally different to our usual (Euclidean) notions of positive time and space. Distance in Minkowski space is like Euclidean distance except ,as mentioned, you take the difference between the time and space components over worldlines, to get Minkowski distance.
We're used to thinking of taking time to say, walk in a straight line from a to b. In Minkowskian geometry you have to first convert the interval of time into a distance (how far light has travelled during your walk), and subtract the actual distance ab from it to calculate how far you have "moved" through spacetime. This isn't "conventional thinking". . .
We have this strong notion that time "moves forward", rather than backward, is one-dimensional and so forth. "Linear and predictable", like a ticking clock.
I can't type words in negative time (although physics says there is no reason I can't) and "negative space" doesn't make much sense either.
But Minkowski space is fundamentally different to our usual (Euclidean) notions of positive time and space. Distance in Minkowski space is like Euclidean distance except ,as mentioned, you take the difference between the time and space components over worldlines, to get Minkowski distance.
We're used to thinking of taking time to say, walk in a straight line from a to b. In Minkowskian geometry you have to first convert the interval of time into a distance (how far light has travelled during your walk), and subtract the actual distance ab from it to calculate how far you have "moved" through spacetime. This isn't "conventional thinking". . .