Many people would lose their jobs?
Well, yes-yes: let continue dismiss and placed in psychiatric hospitals those wise men, who talk that physics lies.
You are ready to sign this?
Three Experiments Challenging SRT
- Thread starter Masterov
- Start date
Well, yes-yes: let continue dismiss and placed in psychiatric hospitals those wise men, who talk that physics lies.
You are ready to sign this?
Something really terrible has just happened...
if any one wishes to contact me do so using any of the following:
scott.sieger@bizzymate.com
scott.sieger@ozziecash.com
admin@bizzymate.com
if any one wishes to contact me do so using any of the following:
scott.sieger@bizzymate.com
scott.sieger@ozziecash.com
admin@bizzymate.com
Why was is thought necessary to quote my entire post to reply without addressing any specific parts of my post?
The eigenvectors are $$\begin{pmatrix} \sqrt{K} \\ -1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}, \quad\begin{pmatrix} \sqrt{K} \\ +1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}, \quad\begin{pmatrix}0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}, \quad\begin{pmatrix}0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix}$$
Any scalar multiple of an eigenvector is also an eigenvector.
So if, as nature prescribes, $$K>0$$, then it follows that $$\Delta S = \begin{pmatrix} \sqrt{K} \\ \pm 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sqrt{K^{-1}} \Delta t = \begin{pmatrix} \Delta t \\ \pm \sqrt{K^{-1}} \Delta t \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}$$ represents motion of $$\pm \sqrt{K^{-1}} $$ in the x direction which transforms into
$${\huge \Delta S'} = \begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & \frac{K v}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & 0 & 0 \\ \frac{v}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \sqrt{K} \\ \pm 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sqrt{K^{-1}} \Delta t = \begin{pmatrix} \frac{\sqrt{K} \pm K v}{\sqrt{1-Kv^2}} \\ \frac{\pm 1 + v \sqrt{K}}{\sqrt{1-Kv^2}} \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sqrt{K^{-1}} \Delta t = \frac{\sqrt{K^{-1}} \pm v}{\sqrt{1-Kv^2}} \Delta t \begin{pmatrix} \sqrt{K} \\ \pm 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \Delta t' \\ \pm \sqrt{K^{-1}} \Delta t' \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}$$
So K > 0 implies that there is an invariant speed $$\sqrt{K^{-1}}$$ such that motion at this speed in either direction in the x-direction is left unchanged by the generalized Galilean transform. Since we (science-minded folk) let evidence from nature decide that $$K=c^{\tiny -2}$$ then it follows that this invariant speed is c, but that was not one of my assumptions.
$$K=c^{\tiny -2}$$ is supported by research based on the color of gold, and experiments with flowing water, airplanes, starlight, electron beams, cosmic ray showers, antimatter, and isotope weights. The math I have shown is 100% compatible with the assumption that K=0, but such an assumption is not supported by evidence from nature.
I am sure, anyone with a degree in physics would call it elementary, since the main lines of argumentation were laid out 1905-1910. (Einstein, Lorentz, Minkowski, von Ignatowsky).
I assumed that the transform with velocity v would convert motionlessness into motion of v in the x direction, and convert motion of -v in the x direction to motionlessness. I assumed the structure of space-time was invariant with respect to translations in time and/or space such that it was only necessary to discuss coordinate differences. I also assumed isometry in x,y and z directions and that the transform was self-consistent.
That was not one of my assumptions. However, if you ask what the eigenvectors of $$\Lambda_K(v)$$ are, the results (for non-zero v) depend on K.
The eigenvectors are $$\begin{pmatrix} \sqrt{K} \\ -1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}, \quad\begin{pmatrix} \sqrt{K} \\ +1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}, \quad\begin{pmatrix}0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}, \quad\begin{pmatrix}0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix}$$
Any scalar multiple of an eigenvector is also an eigenvector.
So if, as nature prescribes, $$K>0$$, then it follows that $$\Delta S = \begin{pmatrix} \sqrt{K} \\ \pm 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sqrt{K^{-1}} \Delta t = \begin{pmatrix} \Delta t \\ \pm \sqrt{K^{-1}} \Delta t \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}$$ represents motion of $$\pm \sqrt{K^{-1}} $$ in the x direction which transforms into
$${\huge \Delta S'} = \begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & \frac{K v}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & 0 & 0 \\ \frac{v}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \sqrt{K} \\ \pm 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sqrt{K^{-1}} \Delta t = \begin{pmatrix} \frac{\sqrt{K} \pm K v}{\sqrt{1-Kv^2}} \\ \frac{\pm 1 + v \sqrt{K}}{\sqrt{1-Kv^2}} \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sqrt{K^{-1}} \Delta t = \frac{\sqrt{K^{-1}} \pm v}{\sqrt{1-Kv^2}} \Delta t \begin{pmatrix} \sqrt{K} \\ \pm 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \Delta t' \\ \pm \sqrt{K^{-1}} \Delta t' \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}$$
So K > 0 implies that there is an invariant speed $$\sqrt{K^{-1}}$$ such that motion at this speed in either direction in the x-direction is left unchanged by the generalized Galilean transform. Since we (science-minded folk) let evidence from nature decide that $$K=c^{\tiny -2}$$ then it follows that this invariant speed is c, but that was not one of my assumptions.
$$K=c^{\tiny -2}$$ is supported by research based on the color of gold, and experiments with flowing water, airplanes, starlight, electron beams, cosmic ray showers, antimatter, and isotope weights. The math I have shown is 100% compatible with the assumption that K=0, but such an assumption is not supported by evidence from nature.
yep .. a history lesson.
so whats new? anything?
Being old is not an argument against a proposition in logic, mathematics or physics. Euclid is still being taught today. Lots of things are new, but Masterov has ruled new theoretical physics since 1911 as off-topic since he's still contesting precision experiment since 1859 and is trying to preserve the Newtonian conception of absolute time in the face of all contradictory precision experiments.
If K is not zero, then the time of which Masterov speaks does not exist as a physically relevant thing, but is only a choice of direction in the geometry of space-time -- a choice which is determined by one's choice of a standard of rest. But rather than argue that, I would first like to get Masterov to stop substituting his false paraphrase of the Lorentz transform for the actual Lorentz transform. This classic strawman fallacy of Masterov is why his claims that SR is inconsistent make no sense.
I am sorry truly I am but it is still a history lesson....sure as Emil has so clearly stated the problem is not in the math it is in the presumptions used to premise the math.
because Masterov is interested in today not history. He is also mixing up a history lesson with what is actual.
What are the false or inaccurate presumptions?
Remember, we are talking within the frame work of SRT, and it's modern application. That is its aplication post general relativity and quantum mechanics.
And so that I am being clear.., just as Newtonian dynamics remains valid as a weak field limit within the context of GR, so too does SRT, where space and/or spacetime can be treated as flat and the affect of gravity and acceleration can be dismissed as insignificant contributions, to experiment and experience.
I seems that I'm screaming into the void.
I'll try again:
Is no need slow down time in order to do reconciliation for Newtonian physics with Michelson-Morley experiment. Time can be left absolute. Enough to make a relativistic coordinates. All: y and z - too.
The need of slow down time evolve from the fact that the photon path becomes greater in the mobile system of coordinates. To compensate for the relativistic increase of the path of a photon is not enough to reduce the longitudinal scale. Need to reduce the scale of the three spatial coordinates.
Let's do it:
SRT:
$$\Delta x'=\Delta x/\gamma$$
$$\Delta y'=\Delta y$$
$$\Delta z'=\Delta z$$
$$\Delta t'=\Delta t\gamma$$
Let's do division by $$\gamma$$ for all:
MT:
$$\Delta x'=\Delta x/\gamma^2$$
$$\Delta y'=\Delta y/\gamma$$
$$\Delta z'=\Delta z/\gamma$$
$$\Delta t'=\Delta t$$
=========================
Ìíå êàæåòñÿ, ÷òî ÿ êðè÷ó â ïóñòîòó.
ß ïîïðîáóþ åùå ðàç:
×òîáû ïðèìèðèòü ôèçèêó Íüþòîíà ñ îïûòàìè Ìàéêåëüñîíà-Ìîðëè íåò íåîáõîäèìîñòè çàìåäëÿòü âðåìÿ. Âðåìÿ ìîæíî îñòàâèòü àáñîëþòíûì. Äîñòàòî÷íî ñäåëàòü ðåëÿòèâèñòñêèìè êîîðäèíàòà. Âñå: y è z - òîæå.
Íåîáõîäèìîñòü çàìåäëÿòü âðåìÿ âîçíèêàåò èç-çà òîãî, ÷òî â ìîáèëüíîé ñèñòåìå êîîðäèíàò ïóòü ôîòîíà ñòàíîâèòñÿ áîëüøå. ×òîáû ñêîìïåíñèðîâàòü ðåëÿòèâèñòñêèé ðîñò ïóòè ôîòîíà íåäîñòàòî÷íî ñîêðàùàòü ïðîäîëüíûé ìàñøòàá. Íåîáõîäèìî ñîêðàùàòü ìàñøòàáû âñåõ òð¸õ ïðîñòðàíñòâåííûõ êîîðäèíàò.
Ñäåëàåì ýòî:
I'll try again:
Is no need slow down time in order to do reconciliation for Newtonian physics with Michelson-Morley experiment. Time can be left absolute. Enough to make a relativistic coordinates. All: y and z - too.
The need of slow down time evolve from the fact that the photon path becomes greater in the mobile system of coordinates. To compensate for the relativistic increase of the path of a photon is not enough to reduce the longitudinal scale. Need to reduce the scale of the three spatial coordinates.
Let's do it:
SRT:
$$\Delta x'=\Delta x/\gamma$$
$$\Delta y'=\Delta y$$
$$\Delta z'=\Delta z$$
$$\Delta t'=\Delta t\gamma$$
Let's do division by $$\gamma$$ for all:
MT:
$$\Delta x'=\Delta x/\gamma^2$$
$$\Delta y'=\Delta y/\gamma$$
$$\Delta z'=\Delta z/\gamma$$
$$\Delta t'=\Delta t$$
=========================
Ìíå êàæåòñÿ, ÷òî ÿ êðè÷ó â ïóñòîòó.
ß ïîïðîáóþ åùå ðàç:
×òîáû ïðèìèðèòü ôèçèêó Íüþòîíà ñ îïûòàìè Ìàéêåëüñîíà-Ìîðëè íåò íåîáõîäèìîñòè çàìåäëÿòü âðåìÿ. Âðåìÿ ìîæíî îñòàâèòü àáñîëþòíûì. Äîñòàòî÷íî ñäåëàòü ðåëÿòèâèñòñêèìè êîîðäèíàòà. Âñå: y è z - òîæå.
Íåîáõîäèìîñòü çàìåäëÿòü âðåìÿ âîçíèêàåò èç-çà òîãî, ÷òî â ìîáèëüíîé ñèñòåìå êîîðäèíàò ïóòü ôîòîíà ñòàíîâèòñÿ áîëüøå. ×òîáû ñêîìïåíñèðîâàòü ðåëÿòèâèñòñêèé ðîñò ïóòè ôîòîíà íåäîñòàòî÷íî ñîêðàùàòü ïðîäîëüíûé ìàñøòàá. Íåîáõîäèìî ñîêðàùàòü ìàñøòàáû âñåõ òð¸õ ïðîñòðàíñòâåííûõ êîîðäèíàò.
Ñäåëàåì ýòî:
As I said. This math is pointless, only serve to distract.
For SR is enough just that. (I assume we are talking about SR and not about something else.)
Special Relativistic time dilation and length contraction derived
ADD:
Ehrenfest paradox is of little importance in MT.
SRT has the absolute cross-scale that is the cause for Ehrenfest paradox.
MT has the relativist cross-scale that do little importance the Ehrenfest paradox in MT.
==========================
Добавлю к сказанному:
Парадокс Эренфкста не так актуален в MT.
В SRT поперечные масштабы абсолютня, что является причиной возникновения Парадокс Эренфеста.
В MT Парадокс Эренфеста не так актуален, поскольку поперечные координаты (как и продольные) подвержены релятивистскому сокращению.
Ehrenfest paradox is of little importance in MT.
SRT has the absolute cross-scale that is the cause for Ehrenfest paradox.
MT has the relativist cross-scale that do little importance the Ehrenfest paradox in MT.
==========================
Добавлю к сказанному:
Парадокс Эренфкста не так актуален в MT.
В SRT поперечные масштабы абсолютня, что является причиной возникновения Парадокс Эренфеста.
В MT Парадокс Эренфеста не так актуален, поскольку поперечные координаты (как и продольные) подвержены релятивистскому сокращению.
Last edited:
It would be funny if it were not sad.Hee...hee...what do you think, where are we?
Our world is not big enough madhouse?
In Russia, dozens of smart people were repressed.
They were guilty that criticized SRT only.
Masterov, I have no doubt that many people including scientists, were both censored and persecuted in the USSR. I have met at least one person who spent 5 years in Siberia for being drunk in public... It does also seem as if Rissia continues some of those patterns. But, you are not right now talking with people or scientists who were subjected to that kind of censure or persecution..., and there is just too much evidense which has been freely explored in the rest of the world to really believe that SRT is not and has not been experimentally supported/proven, to be an accurate description of experience.
I am pretty sure that even Lorentz and Poincare, arrived at time dilation along with length contraction when attempting to explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments, while also retaining the ether and an overall Newtonian perspective.
That was both before Einstein's SRT and to some extent contemporary to the early years of SRT. Lorentz was won over to Einstein's view on this, though it may have been reluctantly.
It is my understanding that the Lorentz ether theory is consistent with SRT, both descriptively and predictively. It is not consistent with GR and the addition of gravity.
Still both did include time dilation. It really seems to me you are not just claiming Einstein was wrong, but that everyone was and is wrong.., who does not accept your ideas.
Yelling your disbelief, does nothing to further your misguided position.
I am pretty sure that even Lorentz and Poincare, arrived at time dilation along with length contraction when attempting to explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments, while also retaining the ether and an overall Newtonian perspective.
That was both before Einstein's SRT and to some extent contemporary to the early years of SRT. Lorentz was won over to Einstein's view on this, though it may have been reluctantly.
It is my understanding that the Lorentz ether theory is consistent with SRT, both descriptively and predictively. It is not consistent with GR and the addition of gravity.
Still both did include time dilation. It really seems to me you are not just claiming Einstein was wrong, but that everyone was and is wrong.., who does not accept your ideas.
Yelling your disbelief, does nothing to further your misguided position.
I was not able to translate it and understand it.
Is it argument?
Glass half full.
What do you see? As the glass is half empty or the glass is half full?
[url]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=facepalm[/URL] , a classical facepalm:
Can you translate?
"When somthing so fucking retarded a full and proper facepalm is not even necessary."
Or: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13eDfrMgFQM[/URL]
What do you see? As the glass is half empty or the glass is half full?
[url]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=facepalm[/URL] , a classical facepalm:
Can you translate?
"When somthing so fucking retarded a full and proper facepalm is not even necessary."
Or: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13eDfrMgFQM[/URL]
Lorentz and Poincare both, working with a Newtionian concept of space and time, found that both length contraction and time dilation were required, to explain the Michelson and Morley experiements. They were trying to defend the ether theory and a fixed preferred frame of reference in the background, for both time and space.
Einstein just demonstrated that you did not have to have an ether to explain observation and experience. In the process he dispelled the concept that there is any preferred frame of reference. No fixed or absolute coordinate system for space and no absolute time.
You are claiming that time dilation is not required while even those who preceded SRT found it was required, to explain the M&M results.
So you are right and everyone else has been wrong for nearly 150 years now? You have not shown anything that demonstrates that to be true. You have not even shown that you understand what przyk and rpenner.., and even AlphaNemeric earlier, have been trying to show and explain.
It is unreasonable to say anything can be dismissed and tossed aside when you have not even shown that you understand it. A theory is not wrong just because you do not understand it! Show that you understand SRT and then perhaps you will be in a position to present a credible challenge.
And many more a smart people and a much longer time were convinced that the Earth - is flat.
For a whole century was not implemented any experiment that would clearly prove that the time dilation exist.
You continue to believe it.
Why?