The death of "Modern Physics". Prepair it's funeral!

[funkstar]

If you don't agree with this you are in serious trouble with Relativity.

Do you understand that spacetime coordinates mark a place and a time relative to a specific reference frame? There's absolute nothing about observations from others frames involved. I suggest you read the first couple of posts here, to understand what a frame of reference is.

This is strange since you seem to know about Relativity and the Lorentz Transform equations are a too basic thing for you to ask here but I think I can guess your point.
The equations that always appear in the literature are those which x' and t' appears at the right side of the equations and you are asking for the equations that directly gives x' and t' as functions of the variables x and t, is this true?

(x',t') usually appears on the left hand side. I want to see you write transformations where (x,t) is a function of (x',t'). (We won't care about y and z.)

I have a doubt about this and I'm not on my desk now (travel).I think I could answer this on Friday 26th.

You should be able to do it easily. The standard equations for transforming from S to S' (given the setup where S is the mothership frame and S' is twin A's frame) are given here, for instance. Setting up equations from S' to S is quite trivial. Please do it.

 

[martillo]

Funkstar,

There's absolute nothing about observations from others frames involved.

You don't understand the essence of Relativity or you lost it!
Is the most important fundamental concept to understand Relativity properly.
I have the spanish traduction of Einstein's book and is very clear there the fundamental notion of different frames of observation.
I strongly reccomend you to find a copy and read it.

(x',t') usually appears on the left hand side. I want to see you write transformations where (x,t) is a function of (x',t'). (We won't care about y and z.)

You should be able to do it easily.

If it is so easy I don't understand why you want me to do it.
It is a system of two equations with four variables solved for two of them. Is a simple math calculation to solve it for the other two variables. Where is the problem?
Although you know the solution you want me to write them. Why?

 

[UnderWhelmed]

Although you know the solution you want me to write them. Why?

He wants you to write them out in order to prove that either a) your doing the math wrong or b) prove that your incapable of doing the math at all.

I think it's a)...

 

[(Q)]

b) prove that your incapable of doing the math at all.

That's usually the case with most crackpots, martillo falls into this category.

 

[UnderWhelmed]

The equations are simple enough as he said, I should hope he would be able to follow them...thats why I said a)

 

[funkstar]

martillo, what is a frame of reference? What are spacetime coordinates? In which frame does the proper time (age) of an object, correspond with the time coordinate of of the frame?

Note: Simple Galilean relativity has frames of reference as well.

If it is so easy I don't understand why you want me to do it.
It is a system of two equations with four variables solved for two of them. Is a simple math calculation to solve it for the other two variables. Where is the problem?
Although you know the solution you want me to write them. Why?

Partly to see if you're at all capable, but most importantly, to show that the Lorentz transforms depend on your choice of frames. And that therefore you are not justified in using the Lorentz transformation equations relating frames S and A, to relate frames S and B.

It's already extremely obvious to everybody else that you don't even understand what a coordinate system change is, but you apparently need to find out the hard way.

So, do the math. If you can.

 

[UnderWhelmed]

U should be ASHAMED of your Ignorance, Marlitto.
I had never seen some as shamless as this relativist.

Ask MacM about satellites TimeDialation.

are you waiting for him to respond? Why are you spamming this post?!

 

[martillo]

Underwhelmed was then right.

b) prove that your incapable of doing the math at all.

That's usually the case with most crackpots, martillo falls into this category.

For the problem I proposed it is not necessary to do that.

Sorry guys but I will not follow that stupid game.

 

[funkstar]

In other words, you can't.

Normally, that wouldn't be anything to be ashamed of, but then, normal people don't usually tend to claim that 100 years of physics is wrong based on their own faulty interpretations...

 

[Anomalous]

are you waiting for him to respond? Why are you spamming this post?!

What spamming, I am just moving my post. Shamelessness is what you should focus on.

 

[martillo]

Funkstar,

You show your math now for the two last still remaining inconsistencies.

 

[PhysMachine]

martillo, you don't seem to get the point. We don't think you understand the existing theory in the least. We want you to show that you do before we waste any further time arguing with you.

 

[martillo]

I have already presented my math.
You say it's wrong, show your math.

 

[(Q)]

Sorry guys but I will not follow that stupid game.

It's not a game, it's a fact. You've been shown where and why you're wrong many times over, yet you refuse to listen.

Crackpot.

 

[martillo]

Crackpot.

Parrot.

 

[Anomalous]

Anomalous,...
For me time dilation doesn't exist!

U should be ASHAMED of your Ignorance, Marlitto.
I had never seen some as shamless as this relativist.

Ask MacM about satellites TimeDialation.

 

[martillo]

Anomalous,

You are SPAMMING!

STOP!

 

[Anomalous]

Anomalous,

You are SPAMMING!

STOP!

Talk about time dialation, trying to manupilate facts ? Wasting time of dumb people here ?

 

[martillo]

What I can say about time dilation is that the experiments of muon's lifetime (decay time) that augments with the velocity of the muons is not a proof for time diation anymore!
In the new theories all internal forces in the particles structures are electric and magnetic and they decreases with velocity. If the forces are weaker the time for the decay to happen is expected to be larger.

Something similar can happen with atomic clocks!

If there is another possible interpretation for the same experiment it is not a proof anymore.

 

[Odin'Izm]

Debunked???
Where? I didn't see it!

Hearing at all of you I can understand how a Physic's LIE can survive for 100 years.

You really don't take Physics seriously. You don't worry about what is RIGHT and what is WRONG. You really don't care about the truth. You simply read, memorize and repeat every wroten thing in every "pretty book" and behaves as you know it all (in a sarcastic style of course).

That's why Physics is at the state it is.

I dont like the theories of current physics any more than you do. but I'd rather have them, than a bunch of strange formula misenterpritation.
His theoretical basis is compleatly off point, he is stating that the mass of an electron does not increase with an increase in velocity.Which it does, as the energy it gains as its velocity increases is stored as mass and seen as an increase in density.