Re: How do you Interpret the Lorentz transform

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
<Androcles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Sun, 30 Oct 2005 03:32:10 GMT
<_8X8f.7895$m%6.5482@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:dqod33-p1e.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
> | <Androcles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> | wrote
> | on Sun, 30 Oct 2005 01:22:14 GMT
> | <afV8f.86054$Ih5.41397@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> | >
> | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:8r9d33-lmc.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > | In sci.physics.relativity, King Coffee
> | > | <king.coffee@xxxxxxx>
> | > | wrote
> | > | on Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:52:33 GMT
> | > | <BaS8f.1264$zb5.177@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> | > | > Hello,
> | > | >
> | > | > I want to determine -- what would observer k observe in the k' reference
> | > | > frame moving with velocity v, parallel to the x axis and the two coordinate
> | > | > system origins coincide at t = 0, a strait forward transform.
> | > | >
> | > | > I assumed that lighting strikes were observed at -x and x simultaneously in
> | > | > the k coordinate system, at t = 0.
> | > | >
> | > | > So, I have the two observation points (-x, 0) and (x, 0).
> | > | >
> | > | > let: A = 1 / sqrt( 1- (v*v)/(c*c)), per Lorentz definition.
> | > | >
> | > | > That maps to the coordinate point pairs in the k' system as ( -Ax,
> | > | > x*v/(c*c) ) and ( Ax, -x*v/c*c) ).
> | > | >
> | > | > One of the points have a negative time. That would imply a future interval.
> | > | > That makes no sense, because the stationary observer k, already received the
> | > | > photon information at the origin and k' is moving away of the origin, so he
> | > | > should have already received the information too.
> | > | >
> | > | > However, if I assuming -- at t =0, the lighting just struck at -x and x, the
> | > | > math will probably work out. But than observer k would not have yet observe
> | > | > the events at t = 0.
> | > | >
> | > | > Do coordinate point pair ( x, t) corresponded to the observation of an event
> | > | > in the k system? I thought propagation delay time was implicit to the
> | > | > Lorentz Transforms.
> | > | >
> | > | > Can you tell me how to use (interpret) the Lorentz Transforms.
> | > | >
> | > | > King
> | > | >
> | > |
> | > | At the risk of A****c**s calling me something insulting, allow me. :-)
> | > | This is more or less the standard solution of how to derive
> | > | the relationships
> | > |
> | > | l/l_0 = sqrt(1-v/c) / sqrt(1+v/c)
> | > | f/f_0 = sqrt(1+v/c) / sqrt(1-v/c)
> | > |
> | > | from the Lorentz
> | > |
> | > | x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> | > | t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> | >
> | > I'd hate to disappoint you, but:
> | >
> | > The Lorentz transformation is
> | > x' = (x-vt) ( a length)
> | > t' = (t-vx/c^2) (a duration)
> | > Ref: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Special_relativity.html#12
> | >
> | > The Einstein transformation is
> | > xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> | > tau = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = t* sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> | > Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
> |
> | Lorentz, Hendrik A. Born 1853-07-18, Arnhem, Netherlands.
> | Died 1928-02-04, Haarlem, Netherlands.
> |
> | FitzGerald, George Francis. Born 1851-08-03 in Kill-o'-the Grange,
> | Monkston, Co. Dublin Ireland. Died 1901-02-21 in Dublin, Ireland.
> |
> | It turns out that the contraction was apparently
> | originally expressed as a true contraction of the amount
> | sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in the direction of motion.
>
> Yeah, the wind squashes the shopping cart but doesn't slow it down,
> the Earth gets the same treatment by rushing through the aether at
> 0.0001c. A bit like crushing an apple in one jaw of a vice.
> England (where I live and Newton used to) is an industrial country
> midway between Fitzgerald's horse farm and Lorentz's tulip factory.

Ah. No wonder.

>
> | This was
> | in error, of course, and reinterpreted by Einstein in
> | its modern form, as far as I can tell from very skimpy
> | research.
>
> | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzgerald-Lorentz_contraction
>
> Wackypedia is the ideal encyclopedia, of course. Any phuckwit can write it.

Feel free to revise the entry on Relativity, then. The editors
would love to hear from you.

(FSVO "love", perhaps. I can't speak for 'em, really -- but your
contention is that we should dump relativity, and Wikipedia is
a more or less representative institution that should be corrected,
if it's incorrect. Since SR is incorrect, by your thinking, one
should at least make the attempt, should one not? And no, don't
look at me; I think relativity is correct, even though you claim
I am a (quote) Phuckwit (unquote).)

>
> | > which is cuckoo, and the Ghost transformation
> | >
> | > x' = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) ( a longer length)
> | > t' = t'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) ( a greater duration)
> | > is as fucking stupid as saying 1 = 2, you fucking ranting lunatic.
> |
> | Congratulations. You win the "I can't read worth *** award".
>
> What did I miss, moron?

Oh, you're right. The Lorentz is useless. We should all be
using Galileo's Patented Transform (And Happy Muon Mixture)
instead.

>
> Your
> | own reference refers to the equation as being originally written
> | down by someone named Voigt, who is presumably identified elsewhere;
> | the Wikipedia has an entry for Voigt, Woldemar, who was a German
> | physicist, and it turns out he was the first to write the transform,
> | in some form, a work titled Ãober das Doppler'sche Princip in 1887.
> |
> | Why this became known as the Lorentz transformation is unclear, of
> | course; all three of Lorentz, Fitzgerald, and Voigt apparently
> | discovered it independently.
>
> Yeah, all three think you can squash an apple by throwing it.

Now that is a Truly Dumb Example(tm). Then again, I for one would
not advocate throwing apples at walls -- as Sam Gamgee once said,
"Waste of a good apple." (I'll leave it at that, but it should
be obvious to anyone who's read it.)

> |
> | And of course the strawman "Ghost Transform" is cuckoo; I for one would
> | not use it. You are, of course, free to do as you will.
>
> You've quoted "From the Lorentz" above. You used it.

If you say so.

>
> | As for raving lunatics: I for one invite the Esteemed Assembly of
> | lurkers present to count the number of swear words, as one metric
> | of lunacy -- or one can merely refer to Dirk's collection of,
> | erm, snippets.
> |
> | http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
>
> I don't give a *** what the *** writes, or what the lurkers count.
> You used the cuckoo transformations above, you are a useless, ignorant,
> stooopid phuckwit that knows v = dx/dt, knows that Einstein wrote
> "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
> when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
> and then refuse to understand he used Galilean relativity to "prove"
> he can't use Galilean relativity. You are quite happy with
> x' = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) as only a complete moron could be.

Want some cheese?

In any event, I use

x' = (x-vt)*gamma
t' = (t-vx/c^2)*gamma

although since x = 0 and x'=0, one might (erroneously) conclude that
I'm using

x' = x*gamma
t' = t*gamma

or some such, if one is not well-versed in math.

> http://www.freefarts.com
> Androcles
>


--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.