Three Experiments Challenging SRT

SRT:
$$\Delta x'=\Delta x/\gamma$$
$$\Delta y'=\Delta y$$
$$\Delta z'=\Delta z$$
$$\Delta t'=\Delta t\gamma$$
This is NOT the Lorentz transform. This is NOT a good summary of physics.
Have I discussed the Lorentz transformations?

I wrote down the relativistic deformation of space-time scales.
Only this.

I wrote that the longitudinal length scale reduced and the time scale increased. And the transverse scales are not changed.

Have I spelled it wrong?
 
Last edited:
Imagine all the people are blind from birth (like a moles).
mole1.jpg

And they found that the speed of light (sorry - the speed of sound) is limited.
Among these mole-people found Mole-Einstein, who said that nothing can travel faster than the speed of sound and the time stops when approaching the speed of sound.
Mole-Lorenz replaced the real-coordinates of Galileo, on which we determine by ear, and said that the physical size of the object is reduced when the speed of an object approaches the speed of sound.

Change the speed of sound at the speed of light and you have a modern relativism.

And this stuff is taught in universities around the world.

=======================

Представьте себе ситуацию: все люди слепы от рождения (как кроты).
И вот они обнаружили, что скорость света (извините – скорость звука) является ограниченной.
Среди этих крото-людей нашелся Крото-Эйнштейн, который заявил, что ничто не может двигаться быстрее скорости звука и время останавливается, когда приближаешься к скорости звука.
Крото-Лоренц заменил реальные координаты Галилея на те, которые мы определяем на слух, и заявил, что физические размеры объектов уменьшаются, когда скорость объекта приближается к скорости звука.

Замените скорость звука на скорость света и вы получите современный релятивизм.

И эту чушь преподают в университетах по всему миру.
 
All these huge energy are obtained only on paper in accordance with SRT-formulas and with formulas of classical electrodynamics.

And mainly confirmed with calorimeters which measure the energies of collision products, but can also be seen in various other ways, such as the effect the LHC beams have on the beam dump site.


And another these are energy give the calorimeters, which are calibrated in accordance with these formulas.

What is your souce for this information? If the energies of particles are much less than expected, where is your detailed exploration of all the implications this might have for our understanding of the interaction between high energy particles and matter? Where do you demonstrate that it is plausible all of our understanding of how the detectors work could be wrong without anybody noticing it? You realise you can't just make up whatever facts suit your beliefs, right?


You arrange verbiage instead to show the results of simple experiments, in which the temperature of a piece of lead under the influence of super-relativistic electrons continues to grow in proportion to the potential difference of the accelerating field.

No, the reality is more mundane: we think SRT is already very well supported so we are not rushing to do additional experiments, and we are certainly not going to bend to the whims of everyone with an interned account who ignores most of the evidence supporting relativity on the basis of an invented excuse that it is not "direct" enough.

Of course, that explanation doesn't satify you because it doesn't give you the boogeyman you want.


These programs have been commented out (removed) because of the lack of any relativistic effects on GPS-satellites.

What is your source for this information? You realise you can't just make up whatever facts suit your beliefs, right?


The latter fact is not advertised because its publicity leave without work like you.

False. I work in quantum information. The research I am paid to do has virtually nothing to do with SRT.
 
Rather than give a simple logical explanation logical conflicts that arise as a consequence of SRT-time dilation, you write the Lorentz formulas that do not explain anything

False. Ignoring and failing to understand explanations that are given to you does not erase them from history, even if you are succeeding in erasing them from your own memory.

I have explained that the Lorentz transformation is the definitive statement regarding everything SRT predicts about space and time. Anything that is not predicted by the Lorentz transformation is not predicted by SRT. If there is no logical problem with the Lorentz transformation, there is no logical problem in SRT.

You have never shown that any logical contradiction can be derived from the Lorentz transformation.


because they themselves are the nonsense.

You have never shown that the Lorentz transformation is nonsense. You have largely ignored it so far, despite both rpenner and I explaining how important it is with regard to understanding relativity.
 
Yes, I claim that all who have the job to teach SR will lose their job to teach SR, whether you agree or disagree.

Nobody has that job description. Physicists are primarily researchers who establish and advance their careers based on the research they do, and are only incidentally expected to fulfill some teaching duties. Even there, relativity is not a specialist subject. It is 100-year-old basic physics that everyone is expected to know, and it would be a piss poor physicist who could only teach relativity and nothing else.

While I was an undergraduate, the person who taught our relativity and electromagnetism course was a researcher in statistical and plasma physics.

Your charge that physicists are supporting relativity in order to protect their careers is not plausible. You will have to look for another explanation for why relativity is generally accepted by physicists.
 
SRT:
$$\Delta x'=\Delta x/\gamma$$
$$\Delta y'=\Delta y$$
$$\Delta z'=\Delta z$$
$$\Delta t'=\Delta t\gamma$$
This is NOT the Lorentz transform. This is NOT a good summary of physics.
Have I discussed the Lorentz transformations?
You have been talking about the Michelson-Morley experiment, the invariance of the relativistic interval and the special theory of relativity. The Lorentz transformation is the principle at the core of all of those. Not understanding that is not understanding the theory you have been fighting for years.

I wrote down the relativistic deformation of space-time scales.
Only this.
Then you are not talking about the special theory of relativity, but have constructed a straw man of no use to physics.

I wrote that the longitudinal length scale reduced and the time scale increased. And the transverse scales are not changed.
This is not in general true in special relativity. Those are special results from two different special cases and by using them together you have made a large error in attempting to summarize the special theory of relativity.

Have I spelled it wrong?
You've attempted to describe the special theory of relativity without any "relativity" in it.

The key part of Relativity (both Galilean Relativity and Special Relativity) is that it converts motionlessness in one coordinate system into motion in another coordinate system and it converts one particular state of inertial motion in one coordinate system into motionless in another coordinate system. Relativity is the intellectual exercise of working out what the same universe would be described as if you were in a different place, moving in a different way.

Without this key part, your bad summary of STR does not preserve $$(\Delta x')^2 - (c \Delta t')^2 = (\Delta x)^2 - (c \Delta t)^2$$ except when v=0 (worthless), $$\Delta x = \Delta t = 0$$ (worthless), or $$v = \pm c \sqrt{ 1 + \left( \frac{c \Delta t}{\Delta x} \right)^2 }$$ (worthless).

Masterov's "summary" of special relativity is badly flawed in threesix ways.
1) His "SRT transform" of a non-moving object doesn't make it move with velocity v -- this is also a fault of the MT transform
2) His "SRT transform" of an object moving with velocity u in the x direction doesn't make it come to a halt until |v| = c -- this is also a fault of the MT transform
3) His "SRT transform" of +v, when composed with -v doesn't equal a transform with velocity 0 -- this is also a fault of the MT transform
4) His "SRT transform" of any non-zero velocity u, when composed with any non-zero velocity v in another direction doesn't equal any transform for any velocity w -- this is also a fault of the MT transform
5) His "SRT transform" is not sufficient to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment
6) His "SRT transform" does not preserved the invariant interval and so does not preserve the consistency of the speed of light.
So of course both Masterov's "summary" of special relativity and the MT transform lead to physically inconsistent predictions like two objects in the same state of motion need not have clocks ticking at the same rate. These flaws are not shared by any of the generalized Galilean transform. And the Lorentz transform is exactly what we get when we assume the hypothesis that $$K=c^{\tiny -2}$$.
 
You have been talking about the Michelson-Morley experiment, the invariance of the relativistic interval and the special theory of relativity. The Lorentz transformation is the principle at the core of all of those. Not understanding that is not understanding the theory you have been fighting for years.
Let's not throw everything into one pile.
At the beginning of understand with simple - with the relativistic deformation of the spatial-temporal scales.

Lorentz transformation - then.
I wrote down the relativistic deformation of space-time scales.
Only this.
Then you are not talking about the special theory of relativity, but have constructed a straw man of no use to physics.
I ask you show: "What do you have up your sleeve?", but you take off a tie and show me a receipt from the store, etc.

LT - then.
I wrote that the longitudinal length scale reduced and the time scale increased. And the transverse scales are not changed.
This is not in general true in special relativity. Those are special results from two different special cases and by using them together you have made a large error in attempting to summarize the special theory of relativity.
Where is the mistake?:

SRT:
$$\Delta x'=\Delta x/\gamma$$
$$\Delta y'=\Delta y$$
$$\Delta z'=\Delta z$$
$$\Delta t'=\Delta t\gamma$$

Write down the correct answer.
 
Last edited:
Nobody has that job description. Physicists are primarily researchers who establish and advance their careers based on the research they do, and are only incidentally expected to fulfill some teaching duties. Even there, relativity is not a specialist subject. It is 100-year-old basic physics that everyone is expected to know, and it would be a piss poor physicist who could only teach relativity and nothing else.

While I was an undergraduate, the person who taught our relativity and electromagnetism course was a researcher in statistical and plasma physics.

Your charge that physicists are supporting relativity in order to protect their careers is not plausible. You will have to look for another explanation
It's interesting what you say, and I take it as such.
So there is no course of SR? SR is known only through self education ?

I tried to find a rational explanation for those who claim the SR. If there is no material reason, remains only stupidity. Just like a religion.
And yes, religions are very old (older than 100 years) and there are many who believe in different religions.
...relativity is generally accepted by physicists.
[url]http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/faster-than-light-neutrinos-opera.html?ref=hp[/URL]:
The collaboration has also checked its original statistical analysis, but today's decision to submit the results to a journal was not unanimous. "About four people" among the group of around 15 who did not sign the preprint have signed the journal submission, according to a source within the collaboration, while "four new people" have decided not to sign. That leaves the number of dissenters at about 15, compared with about 180 who did sign the journal submission.
So, from a total of 180 +15 physicists, 180 are ready to give up SR !
 
The article you linked to regarding the OPERA results is badly out of date. The results were incorrect, due to a faulty cable connection, which caused a reported delay of 60 ns.

The purported results have nothing to do with giving up SR.
 
It's interesting what you say, and I take it as such.
So there is no course of SR? SR is known only through self education ?

I never said that. Of course SR is taught in undergraduate physics. What I said, black on white, was that nobody's career depends on the validity of SR because nobody gets hired by a university exclusively to teach SR. University faculty are primarily there to do research. But universities also serve the function of educating the next generation of scientists and engineers. So the way it normally works is that a researcher is expected or contractually obliged, as part of their job, to spend some fraction of their time teaching. Whoever is teaching the SR course in a university is probably doing it because the physics department put SR on the undergraduate curriculum, so someone had to teach it, and they either volunteered or were asked to do it.


I tried to find a rational explanation for those who claim the SR. If there is no material reason, remains only stupidity. Just like a religion.

A falsifiable religion with impressive experimental support, especially if you include the experimental success of theories with relativity built into them. So not like a religion.


[url]http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/faster-than-light-neutrinos-opera.html?ref=hp[/URL]:

So, from a total of 180 +15 physicists, 180 are ready to give up SR !

When I say that SR is generally accepted by the scientific community, I of course mean that it is generally accepted on the basis of the information we currently have available to us, and not that it is somehow considered sacred and beyond criticism. The entire physics community should be willing to "give up" SR if evidence starts to emerge that SR can't be reconciled with.

The 180 you refer to were physicists who thought results that potentially challenged SR, if they survived scrutiny and were later replicated, should be communicated to the scientific community. They were not calling for the death of SR. For the flavour of their attitude, read how they concluded the version of their own paper that sciencemag.org is referring to:

OPERA collaboration said:
In conclusion, despite the large significance of the measurement reported here and the robustness of the analysis, the potentially great impact of the result motivates the continuation of our studies in order to investigate possible still unknown systematic effects that could explain the observed anomaly. We deliberately do not attempt any theoretical or phenomenological interpretation of the results.

As you should know if you were following this at all, OPERA later identified faults with their equipment and retracted their result. The latest version of their paper reports a neutrino velocity within experimental error of the speed of light.

The latest version of the paper is available here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897.
The 17[sup]th[/sup] November version that sciencemag.org was referring to: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897v2.
 
Where is the mistake?:
SRT:
$$\Delta x'=\Delta x/\gamma$$
$$\Delta y'=\Delta y$$
$$\Delta z'=\Delta z$$
$$\Delta t'=\Delta t\gamma$$

Write down the correct answer.

Look at the separation between two events, A and B, on two distinct world lines with the same velocity. The separation at the same time in one coordinate system, $$\Delta t = 0$$, is not the same as the separation in the other coordinate system, $$\Delta t' = 0$$.

Assume the Lorentz transform applies since we are exploring special relativity. If you don't see a K in an equation, then I have not used any part of special relativity for that result.
$$K=c^{\tiny -2}$$ (eqn 1)
So the coordinate separation between events in one system is:
$${\huge \Delta S} \equiv \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta t \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta x \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta y \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta z \end{pmatrix} \equiv \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} t_A - t_B \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} x_A - x_B\\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} y_A - y_B\\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} z_A - z_B \end{pmatrix} $$ (eqn 2)
The following equation contrains events A and B to be on parallel world lines both moving at velocity $$(u_x, \; u_y, \; u_z)$$ :
$$\begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} -u_x & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} -u_y & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} -u_z & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} {\huge \Delta S} = \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_x \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_y \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_z \end{pmatrix} $$ (eqn 3)
So the spatial separation between events A and B is ONLY equal to $$(L_x, \; L_y, \; L_z)$$ if $$(u_x = 0, \; u_y = 0, \; u_z = 0)$$ or if $$\Delta t = 0$$:
$$u_x = 0 \, \wedge \, u_y = 0 \, \wedge \, u_z = 0 \; \vee \; \Delta t = 0 \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta x \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta y \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta z \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_x \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_y \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_z \end{pmatrix}$$ (eqn 4)

So now we introduce the Lorentz transform which moves us to a new coordinate system.
$${\huge \Delta S'} \equiv \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta t' \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta x' \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta y' \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta z' \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & \frac{K v}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & 0 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \frac{v}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & 0 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} {\huge \Delta S} $$ (eqn 5a)
For $$\left| v \right| < c$$ the Lorentz transform is invertible and its inverse is just a Lorentz transform with a velocity of the opposite sign.
$${\huge \Delta S} = \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & \frac{- K v}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & 0 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \frac{-v}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & 0 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} {\huge \Delta S'} $$ (eqn 5b)
From equations 3 and 5b we get:
$$\begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \frac{-(u_x + v)}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & \frac{1 + K u_x v}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & 0 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \frac{-u_y}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & \frac{K u_y v}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & 1 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \frac{-u_z}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & \frac{K u_z v}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} {\huge \Delta S'} = \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_x \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_y \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_z \end{pmatrix}$$ (eqn 6a)
And multiplying both sides on the left by $$ \tiny \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}}{1 + K u_x v} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{- K u_y v}{1 + K u_x v} & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{- K u_z v}{1 + K u_x v} & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$$ we recover a constraint similar in form to equation 3.
$$\begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \frac{-(u_x + v)}{1 + K u_x v} & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \frac{-u_y \sqrt{1 - K v^2}}{1 + K u_x v} & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \frac{-u_z \sqrt{1 - K v^2}}{1 + K u_x v} & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} {\huge \Delta S'} = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}}{1 + K u_x v} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{- K u_y v}{1 + K u_x v} & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{- K u_z v}{1 + K u_x v} & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_x \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_y \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_z \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \frac{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}}{1 + K u_x v} L_x \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_y - \frac{K u_y v}{1 + K u_x v} L_x\\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_z - \frac{K u_z v}{1 + K u_x v} L_x \end{pmatrix}$$ (eqn 6b)
Or $$u'_x = \frac{u_x + v}{1 + K u_x v}, \; u'_y = \frac{u_y \sqrt{1 - K v^2}}{1 + K u_x v}, \; u'_z = \frac{u_z \sqrt{1 - K v^2}}{1 + K u_x v}, \; L'_x = \frac{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}}{1 + K u_x v} L_x \, \; L'_y = L_y - \frac{K u_y v}{1 + K u_x v} L_x , \; \textrm{and} \; L'_z = L_z - \frac{K u_z v}{1 + K u_x v} L_x$$ and:
$$\begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} -u'_x & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} -u'_y & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} -u'_z & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} {\huge \Delta S'} = \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L'_x \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L'_y \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L'_z \end{pmatrix} $$ (eqn 6c)
Such that
$$u'_x = 0 \, \wedge \, u'_y = 0 \, \wedge \, u'_z = 0 \; \vee \; \Delta t' = 0 \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta x' \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta y' \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta z' \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} L'_x \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L'_y \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L'_z \end{pmatrix}$$ (eqn 7)
Which is the content of special relativity with respect to length contraction.

So if $$u_x = 0 \, \wedge \, u_y = 0 \, \wedge \, u_z = 0$$ we have $$u'_x = v, \; u'_y = 0, \; u'_z = 0, \; L'_x = \sqrt{1 - K v^2} L_x \, \; L'_y = L_y , \; \textrm{and} \; L'_z = L_z$$ and so it follows that
$$u_x = 0 \, \wedge \, u_y = 0 \, \wedge \, u_z = 0 \, \wedge \; \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta x \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta y \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta z \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_x \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_y \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_z \end{pmatrix} \; \wedge \, \Delta t' = 0 \Rightarrow \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta x' \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta y' \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta z' \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} \sqrt{1 - K v^2} L_x \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_y \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_z \end{pmatrix} $$ (eqn 8)
which is a specific conclusion, NOT a general rule.


Special relativity is NOT a rescaling of the coordinate axes -- it is much more akin to a rotation of the space and time axis.

Russian Wikipedia on hyperbolic rotation
 
Are you, rpenner, trying to intimidate me by mathematics, rather than to respond.
And I'm not scared.
I speak by mathematics as well as you, but fathom that are here you did written, I will not, because it has nothing to do with what discussed now.
 
You lost time.
For SRT correct so:

$$\begin{pmatrix}
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta x' \\
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta y' \\
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta z' \\
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta t'\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta x \sqrt{1 - K v^2}\\
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta y \\
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta z \\
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta t / \sqrt{1 - K v^2} \end{pmatrix} $$

For MT:

$$\begin{pmatrix}
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta x' \\
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta y' \\
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta z' \\
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta t'\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta x (1 - K v^2)\\
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta y \sqrt{1 - K v^2}\\
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta z \sqrt{1 - K v^2}\\
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta t \end{pmatrix} $$
 
@Emil. re: your post #600

You may recall the issue of my calling up all altercations that have occurred between posters and AN over the years from 2003 to today.
The main reason for doing this was to find evidence of AN's psychic influence creating pulminary episodes with in his victims and also leading to serious mental health issues.
The process requires that all respondants/victims complete a survey that provides unsolicited commentary of physical health prior to and subsequent to meeting up with AN online.
The whole exercise is to provide proof and evidencial support to the nature of psychic interconnectiveness between people [abeit negative effect]. It is not to be used as a way or method to destroy the character and personality of someone who appears to be very ill.
So far to date respondants have all indicated in their returns that AN has serious issues to address and may need proper medical assistance to do so.
His use of the words deliberate dishonesty, dishonest, nonsense, and obvious variations have been shown to be his "power words" ranging from sciforums, physics forums, JREF forums, Yahoo answers, and a whole swag of other bulletin boards and fora for over 9 years. His signature use of these power words is obvious, as is their intent.
There are issues that are more of a more legal kind which I will not discuss here and will be maintained as confidential due to differences in legal systems etc and purpose/scope of investigation and out of respect to his obvious and apparent condition of "health".

So it is not surprising that AN weilds a stong influence over others here at sciforums, as the survey so far indicates this is a common feature of his "gift"
It is also not surprising that the key word search reveals such an incredible obsession with the power words "dishonesty, honesty, nonsense, and his propensity to attack using those words to cover his own issues with their meanings [ in reflection ] is pretty obvious and seriously disturbing, given that this approach has infected the behaviour [parroting] of so many other people along the way.
The evidence of psychic connectivity that AN so desparately wishes to conceal [Paranoia] will actually be revealed by his attempts to conceal it. [statistically over 9 years] which early indicators are suggesting and the medical records of those who have suffered by the use of those words are further supporting.

There is no Joy or pleasure to be gained from this exercise as it is terribly sadenning when considering it's implications to a more comprehensive extent.
 
Quantum Quack,
What could I say? .... I am not concerned about AlphaNumeric.
I would like to share ideas with others.
I have prepared a few words about AlphaNumeric, but I changed my mind because here is not the place to talk about people.
What I can say is that I am not interested in reproducing mainstream science, without a logical argumentation. (That I can find out from Wikipedia).
I'm also surprised that some argue with: who say, how many say or how long they say. I am interested in ideas only.
But I think we're going off-topic and should apologize to Masterov.
 
Quantum Quack,
What could I say? .... I am not concerned about AlphaNumeric.
I would like to share ideas with others.
I have prepared a few words about AlphaNumeric, but I changed my mind because here is not the place to talk about people.
What I can say is that I am not interested in reproducing mainstream science, without a logical argumentation. (That I can find out from Wikipedia).
I'm also surprised that some argue with: who say, how many say or how long they say. I am interested in ideas only.
But I think we're going off-topic and should apologize to Masterov.
agrees! apology posted in above post of mine #615
Unfortunately it is the oppression of ideas that the issue with AN is about.
 
Are you, rpenner, trying to intimidate me by mathematics, rather than to respond.
I am not using mathematics to obfuscate or intimidate. I am using math to elucidate the meaning of length contraction in special relativity, a theory about coordinate transformations with which you are unfamiliar. We have many physicists and mathematicians here, so I am confident that any of them would say I am using exactly the right level of mathematics to calculate general length contraction. If you like, I am so confident that I am using the right level of mathematics that I will wager a banning of any length with any moderator as a judge. If I'm right, you would be banned X days, if I am wrong you are banned X days, if the moderator agrees. You get to pick X and the moderator. Is this fair enough?
And I'm not scared.
Who the hell wants you scared? The physics-capable of us merely want you to learn what special relativity says before you criticize it. Now you've been criticizing for years, but we continue to hope someday you will learn what special relativity says. To help you, we explain when you are wrong.
I speak by mathematics as well as you,
Is this really true? Because I'm ready to teach you elements of General Relativity, if you would like, but I have never seen you use college-level mathematics. Here I have limited myself to use only high-school level the type of first-year college mathematics that I was doing in high school.
but fathom that are here you did written,
This part did not make sense to me.
I will not, because it has nothing to do with what discussed now.
You will not do what?

You lost time.
No. For $$\Delta S$$, $$\vec{u} = (u_x,u_y,u_z) = \vec{0}$$ so $$\Delta t$$ is irrelevant. For $$\Delta S'$$, $$\vec{u'} \neq \vec{0}$$ so we require $$\Delta t' = 0$$.
For SRT correct so:

$$\begin{pmatrix}
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta x' \\
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta y' \\
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta z' \\
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta t'\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta x \sqrt{1 - K v^2}\\
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta y \\
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta z \\
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta t / \sqrt{1 - K v^2} \end{pmatrix} $$
This is still wrong for the 6 numbered reasons above.

For MT:

$$\begin{pmatrix}
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta x' \\
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta y' \\
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta z' \\
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta t'\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta x (1 - K v^2)\\
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta y \sqrt{1 - K v^2}\\
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta z \sqrt{1 - K v^2}\\
\rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta t \end{pmatrix} $$
This is still meaningless in a physics context.

Review -- what part of this do you disagree with?
$$K=c^{\tiny -2}$$ (eqn 1)
We are required to make this assumption since you wanted me to explain the Lorentz Transform as part of Special Relativity.
$${\huge \Delta S} \equiv \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta t \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta x \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta y \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta z \end{pmatrix} \equiv \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} t_A - t_B \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} x_A - x_B\\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} y_A - y_B\\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} z_A - z_B \end{pmatrix} $$ (eqn 2)
This is just the definition of $$\Delta S$$ as coordinate differences between two events (A and B) in the first coordinate system.
$$\begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} -u_x & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} -u_y & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} -u_z & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} {\huge \Delta S} = \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_x \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_y \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_z \end{pmatrix} $$ (eqn 3)
This is just a convenient way to write:
$$x_A - x_B = L_x + u_x ( t_A - t_B ) \\ y_A - y_B = L_y + u_y ( t_A - t_B ) \\ z_A - z_B = L_z + u_z ( t_A - t_B ) $$ which is what you get when you subtract equations describing linear (inertial according to Newton) motion at the same speed from each other.
Example:
$$x_A = (x_0 + L_x) + u_x t_A \quad \wedge \quad x_B = (x_0) + u_x t_B \quad \Rightarrow \quad x_A - x_B = (x_0 + L_x - x_0) + u_x t_A - u_x t_B = L_x + u_x ( t_A - t_B )$$
$$u_x = 0 \, \wedge \, u_y = 0 \, \wedge \, u_z = 0 \; \vee \; \Delta t = 0 \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta x \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta y \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta z \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_x \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_y \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_z \end{pmatrix}$$ (eqn 4)
Here I am stating the the arguments up to this point (remember, there are no K's yet, so I am just talking about linear motion, not any type of Relativity), allow me to claim a prove. I'm saying
IF the worldlines of A and B are motionless THEN $$\Delta x = L_x$$ and $$\Delta y = L_y$$ and $$\Delta x = L_x$$
AND IF the coordinates of A and B have the same t-coordinate THEN $$\Delta x = L_x$$ and $$\Delta y = L_y$$ and $$\Delta x = L_x$$
AND IF $$\Delta x = L_x$$ and $$\Delta y = L_y$$ and $$\Delta x = L_x$$ THEN EITHER the coordinates of A and B have the same t-coordinate OR the worldlines of A and B are motionless OR BOTH.

$${\huge \Delta S'} \equiv \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta t' \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta x' \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta y' \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta z' \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & \frac{K v}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & 0 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \frac{v}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & 0 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} {\huge \Delta S} $$ (eqn 5a)
This is the definition of the Lorentz transform.
$${\huge \Delta S} = \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & \frac{- K v}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & 0 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \frac{-v}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & 0 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} {\huge \Delta S'} $$ (eqn 5b)
This is an application of the inverse transform.
$$\begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \frac{-(u_x + v)}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & \frac{1 + K u_x v}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & 0 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \frac{-u_y}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & \frac{K u_y v}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & 1 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \frac{-u_z}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & \frac{K u_z v}{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}} & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} {\huge \Delta S'} = \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_x \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_y \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_z \end{pmatrix}$$ (eqn 6a)
This is just substituting in the right side of 5b for $$\Delta S$$ in equation 3 followed by matrix multiplication.
$$\begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \frac{-(u_x + v)}{1 + K u_x v} & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \frac{-u_y \sqrt{1 - K v^2}}{1 + K u_x v} & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \frac{-u_z \sqrt{1 - K v^2}}{1 + K u_x v} & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} {\huge \Delta S'} = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}}{1 + K u_x v} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{- K u_y v}{1 + K u_x v} & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{- K u_z v}{1 + K u_x v} & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_x \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_y \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_z \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \frac{\sqrt{1 - K v^2}}{1 + K u_x v} L_x \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_y - \frac{K u_y v}{1 + K u_x v} L_x\\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_z - \frac{K u_z v}{1 + K u_x v} L_x \end{pmatrix}$$ (eqn 6b)
As I stated, I multiply on the left by the same matrix. It was a bit of a pain to find the right matrix, but it is of full rank and completely legal to multiply by, so long as I multiply on both sides.
$$\begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} -u'_x & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} -u'_y & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} -u'_z & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} {\huge \Delta S'} = \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} 0 \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L'_x \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L'_y \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L'_z \end{pmatrix} $$ (eqn 6c)
This is just emphasizing the point that in the new coordinate system the world lines of A and B continue to be separated by a constant amount -- but the velocity at which the worldlines move and the distance by which the worldlines are separated need not be the same as in the original coordinate system.
$$u'_x = 0 \, \wedge \, u'_y = 0 \, \wedge \, u'_z = 0 \; \vee \; \Delta t' = 0 \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta x' \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta y' \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta z' \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} L'_x \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L'_y \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L'_z \end{pmatrix}$$ (eqn 7)
This exactly mirrors the case in equation 4.

$$u_x = 0 \, \wedge \, u_y = 0 \, \wedge \, u_z = 0 \, \wedge \; \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta x \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta y \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta z \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_x \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_y \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_z \end{pmatrix} \; \wedge \, \Delta t' = 0 \Rightarrow \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta x' \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta y' \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} \Delta z' \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \rule{0pt}{20ex} \sqrt{1 - K v^2} L_x \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_y \\ \rule{0pt}{20ex} L_z \end{pmatrix} $$ (eqn 8)
This says
IF the two world lines A and B are motionless and separated only any amount in the x-, y- and z- directions in the original coordinate system THEN in the second coordinate system any event on moving world line A is separated from an event on the moving world line B at the same t'-coordinate by a spatial distance that is shorter by a factor of $$\sqrt{1 - K v^2}$$ in the x-direction only than the separation in the first coordinate system.

That statement may be too hard for Google Translate to make intelligible in Russian -- which is one of the primary reasons I use so much math.


Special relativity is NOT a rescaling of the coordinate axes -- it is much more akin to a rotation of the space and time axis.
That which is rotated can be rotated back to the original state.
That which is Lorentz-transformed can be Lorentz-transformed back to the original state.
That is just one of many ways the the Lorentz transformation is like a rotation -- it is one of the main reasons why neither Masterov's summary of Special Relativity or the MT transform is physically meaningful.
 
Last edited:
If I'm right, you would be banned X days, if I am wrong you are banned X days, if the moderator agrees. You get to pick X and the moderator. Is this fair enough?

Am I just tired or is that kind of like, "Heads I win, tails you lose?"
 
Oops. “If I'm right, you would be banned X days, if I am wrong I would be banned X days, if the moderator agrees. You get to pick X and the moderator. Is this fair enough?” was meant.
 
Back
Top