Re: Where is the flaw?

Sorcerer wrote:
"Spoonfed" <good4usoul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1152296920.575087.247670@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Spoonfed" <good4usoul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:1152194886.564249.31460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > "Spoonfed" <good4usoul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > news:1152164037.932314.91030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > |
| > | > | cafeinst@xxxxxxx wrote:
| > | > | > This post is really a follow-up to another post a few months
ago:
| > | > | >
| > | >
| >
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/31732ed283f482d5/c72b57a46f96a9b2?lnk=st&q=cafeinst+relativity&rnum=2&hl=en#c72b57a46f96a9b2
| > | > | >
| > | > | > See http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/"TwinParadox".pdf
| > | > | >
| > | > | > I'm not an expert on relativity; I just took physics in high
school,
| > | > | > which covered that topic. However, recollecting what I learned
| > there,
| > | > | > it seems that this paper does a good job refuting special
| > relativity.
| > | > | > Are there any experts out there who can set me straight and
point to
| > | > | > the flaw in this paper, assuming that there is a flaw?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Thank you,
| > | > | > Craig
| > | > |
| > | > | You've got some guy standing on a 260,000 km long space ship and
| > | > | watching a buoy go by, timing when he sees the front and back end
of
| > | > | the space ship pass the buoy at c*sqrt(3/4). The amount of time
his
| > | > | clock reads will vary considerably depending on whether he does
this
| > | > | from the front or back or middle of the ship.
| > | > |
| > | > | Note that the apparent speed of the receding buoy is less than
half
| > the
| > | > | speed of light, while the apparent speed of the approaching buoy
is
| > | > | superluminal.
| > | > |
| > | > | And I don't really see the point of taking pictures of the
| > stopwatches.
| > | > | It might be of some interest to take pictures of the spaceship
from
| > | > | the buoy as it approaches (it would appear elongated) and as it
| > | > | recedes, (it would appear foreshortened.) And the considerable
| > | > | distortion of the image as it passed close to the buoy.
| > | > |
| > | > | Now, of course the two readings on the stopwatches are going to be
| > | > | different. I would like to find out, once the two different
answers
| > | > | are given to the author, how he intends to discern which of the
two
| > | > | objects was moving and which was stationary. He claims he would
be
| > | > | able to, but I don't know whether he realizes he is bluffing.
| > | >
| > | > Yes, you are right, the time at the back is different to the time at
| > | > the front.
| > |
| > | True, the two clocks (if synchronized on the train) would be
different.
| > |
| > |
| > | t' = (t - v x/c^2)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
| > |
| > | According to the theory of relativity, the clocks would differ
| > | precisely by a value of ((v x)/(c^2))/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2), where v is the
| > | velocity of the train relative to the observer, x is the distance
| > | between the clocks on the train in the observers reference frame, and
c
| > | is the speed of light.
| > |
| > | > Here are the clocks at the back and front, speed 0.6.
| > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/train.gif
| > | >
| > |
| > | The two clocks should, in general, go at the same rate for any given
| > | observer. Your animation shows the back clock starting out behind and
| > | catching up. SR says the back clock starts out ahead and stays ahead.
| >
| >
| > The difficulty Einstein was faced with was not knowing the time at
| > the mirror. Knowing the time at the source is easy enough, but how can
| > we tell what the time is at Saturn, with Cassini in orbit there, unless
| > Cassini has a mirror to reflect light back to us? Knowing the time that
| > a signal was sent and the time it is recieved, Einstein predicted the
time
| > at Saturn would be half the round trip time plus the start time. So my
| > clocks are positioned where the mirrors are.
| >
| > The ray from the front of the train strikes the mirror at the rear of
| > the train a mere 8 seconds after the experiment begins, after which the
ray
| > from the rear of the train strikes the mirror at the front of the train
a
| > full
| > 8 seconds after the experiment begins and 12 seconds after the ray
| > from the front of the train strikes the mirror at the rear of the train,
| > since both
| > rays complete their respective round trip in 16 seconds, four seconds
| > faster than they do in the stationary frame.
| > The 12 seconds delay between the 1st 8 seconds and the 2nd 8 seconds
| > is due to "the equations must be linear on account of the properties
| > of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time.", Einstein said so
| > and he's a god.
| >
| >
| > |
| > | Of course, you may be taking into account the doppler effect in your
| > | consideration of the apparent clock speeds.
| >
| > Of course, you are guessing as usual. My animation is a parallelogram,
not a
| > rhombus.
| >
|
| Unfortunately, I have to guess what your talking about most of the
| time. In this case, it appears I've given you too much credit.

Wrong again. I'm discussing the mathematics of SR, something you are
not familiar with. However, you can read it at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
(if you can read math, that is).
If you have any questions just ask instead of guessing, dork. I know it
inside out. The gif shows the derivation of the cuckoo transformations
for idiots like you. You know, the transformations Einstein blamed Lorentz
for in case they backfired on him, the ones you can't find a paper for.


Actually, Einstein has a specific method for synchronizing the clocks
on the train in which the clock at the back of a moving train should be
ahead of the one behind. This is done by sending signals out from the
exact center of the train toward the front and back at the same time.
Your animation shows the clock at the back of the train being set
according to a signal from the front of the train, which puts the back
clock 8 seconds behind the one at the front, in the train's reference
frame.


| > | I would agree that it is
| > | important to take these effects into account if you want to find out
| > | what the observer actually sees, or vice-versa, when the observer
| > | wishes to take what he sees and map it back into what actually
| > | happened.
| >
| > An observer at the back of the train sees a signal from the front
| > of the train 8 seconds after it was sent.
| > An observer at the front of the train sees a signal from the back of
| > of the train 8 seconds after it was sent.
| > An observer at the trackside sees a signal from the station 10 seconds
| > after it was sent. All very self-consistent, surely?
| >
| >
| >
| > In such a case, the oncoming clock would appear to be going
| > | fast, and the receding clock would appear to be going slow.
| >
| > We are not concerned with what the rider of the train sees
| > of the clock at the station, little boy.
|
| Kind of difficult to tell what we're concerned with in an animation
| without a description that flashes by in six seconds , old man.

You don't know how to disassemble an animated gif? Wow! I thought
you were smart enough for that.
Never mind, there is a fuller explanation at
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
Who created your movie for you? Or did you steal it?
I took it apart, boy. You vertical ray of light has a different speed to
the horizontal ray. Didn't you know the speed of light is isotropic?


|
| > It takes 8 seconds for
| > light to get from the engine to the caboose, and 8 seconds
| > from the caboose to the engine. The distance between
| > caboose and engine doesn't change, you see.
| > The clock at the caboose is 8 seconds behind the clock at the engine,
| > and the clock at the engine is 8 seconds behind the clock at the caboose
| > 12 seconds later, that's simultaneity,
|
| No, that's not simultaneity.

Yes it is if I say so.
"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." - Humpty Roberts.
Now Humpty Roberts is a top-notch relativist s..thead, he's contributed
to the relativity FAQs and endorsed by Professor s..thead John Baez of
USC, and if Humpty says I don't need proof, who the hell are you to argue,
punk?

Classic. You take out-of-context statements which you regard as
foolish and make fun of, and then wholeheartedly adopt and utilize it
for yourself. I would nominate this passage for Van de Moortel's hall
of fame.

The light from the front of the train hits the mirror at the back of the
train
simultaneously with the light from the back of the train hitting the mirror
at the front of the train, but at different times.

|
| > unless they both read
| > 0 or 16, in which case it takes no time at all for light to travel
between
| > them, for "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part,
physically,
| > of an infinitely great velocity." -- Laurel and Hardy... oops.. Einstein
| >
|
| Your favorite pastime of taking statements out of context, I see.

You see nothing, punk. You are blinder than a fleidermaus. I've tried
to help you, but you have your head up your arse.
The clocks at the front and back of the train agree once the light
is received.

Only the person at the back of the train would see this. The person at
the front of the train would see the back clock 16 seconds behind his
clock. Think about it.

That's simultaneity. They do not agree when the light
is reflecting at the mirror, but they both read 8 seconds, s..tHEAD!


|
| > |
| > | So, is there a place to observe the passing train where you see the
| > | clock at the back of the train overtake the clock at the front, as you
| > | show in your animation? Yes.
| >
| > Answer your own strawman, why don't you?
| >
| > The answer is NO.
| > The clock at the back of the train shows
| > the same time as the clock at the front of the train after 16 seconds,
| > so I merged them after the experiment was over.
|
| Okay, I've managed to find a way to slow down the animation and see
| what is actually going on.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/train.gif
|
| When it went by fast, along with your statement that you agreed with
| me, it created the illusion that you had some clue what you were
| talking about. Your clocks are not synchronized in the train's frame,
| and your method of "merging" them is stupid.

Why, because I overlayed them, s..thead? You really should learn
to be polite to those teaching you PHYSICS, imbecile.

Your method is stupid. It is a stupid method. I occasionally make
stupid mistakes, too, but I can learn from them once they are pointed
out.


I know exactly what I'm talking about, the derivation of the cuckoo
transformations. Nor do you have to take my word for it. You can read
it for yourself in
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
(if you can read math, that is, which I doubt).
Nor do you have to like me, I'm not Mr. Nice Guy, I'm Dr. Nasty,
but you do need to learn math from the bottom up and know where
the cuckoo transformations come from. C'mon, Spookfood. It is time
someone stopped feeding you and you learned to eat for yourself.
That f..kin' sugar is poison. It is transforming you to fat and lazy.
Exercise that mind of yours. Question, not accept. I know you can do it.



Why, thank you for the vote of confidence, Androcles. I think you
might do well to stop focusing on the stupidest things Einstein ever
said, and start considering the few areas where you think he was right.
As long as you approach the problem using vague statements which are
essentially wrong or easily misinterpreted, (i.e. "the velocity of
light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
velocity.") you won't make any progress. Follow a more mechanistic
approach, where you follow the steps he actually did, rather than the
way he described it ten years later (once he'd apparently forgotten
what he'd done.)

In fact, I can see there is a lot of poison that you've taken right
here in this thread. You are accepting that proof is irrelevant and
using that as an argument against me. You have accepted that the
velocity of light plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
velocity in your thought experiment. These are uncooked meat with
trichonosis. You must cook them carefully and well.

An object approaching at the speed of light would have no delay between
the arrival of the light preceding the object's arrival and the arrival
of the object. It's velocity would appear to be infinite and it's
momentum would be infinite. This does not mean that you can treat the
speed of light as infinite in all cases.

There are times when it is inappropriate to use deductive reasoning
when inductive reasoning does the job faster and better. Imagine a
pilot who needs PROOF that flying the plane incorrectly would cause the
plane to crash. Imagine an engineer who requires a deductive proof
from first principles that every component in his design will work as
specified. While I'm sure such engineers exist, there are many more
who simply rely on tried-and-tested methods which work (as far as they
are concerned) because they work, and would say to the engineer of the
former type "Don't reinvent the wheel."

|
| > Both moving clocks tick off 16 seconds when the stationary clock
| > ticks off 20 seconds, as required. The equations
| > are LINEAR (if you only look at the end points).
| > The clock at the back of the train ticks off 8 seconds in 4 seconds,
then
| > is slows down to tick off 8 seconds in 12 seconds.
| > The clock at the front of the train ticks off 8 seconds in 12 seconds,
then
| > it speeds up to tick off 8 seconds in 4 seconds.
| >
| >
| > | As I picture it, for any given clock
| > | reading there is a cone (the intersection of two expanding spheres)
| > | shaped region in space where any observer within it would see the that
| > | time on both clocks simultaneously. (I just overcomplicated things
| > | again, didn't I?)
| >
| > Of course you are right. The intersection of two expanding spheres
| > is a cone. I call it a circle, but let's agree that circles are called
| > cones, shall we? Everything should be as silly as possible, preferably
| > sillier.
| > Did you take your medication before or after you decided to call
| > circles "cones"?
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > |
| > | > The "author" is Einstein. He bluffed (actually, he LIED). He won't
| > | > tell you though, he's dead.
| > |
| > | Actually, the author I was referring to was Ardeshir Mehta, the author
| > | of the Original Poster's challenge, located at:
| > | http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/SimpleChallengeOfRelativity.pdf
| > |
| > | > I'm surprised to see we agree, Spookfood.
| > | > Androcles.
| > |
| > | I'm surprised that you have any concept that is self-consistent enough
| > | to agree with!
| >
| > That's because you think a circle is a cone.
| >
| >
| > You appear to be rationally applying the concept of
| > | propagation delay to a system of Galilean relativity, which is a very
| > | difficult problem.
| > |
| >
| > Difficult problems are fun.
| >
|
| Okay, I have one for you.
|
| Exercise: Show that the set of all intersection points of two spheres
| expanding at constant rates forms a cone.
|
| Enjoy!
f..k off.

If the two spheres expand at the same rate, the surface is that
generated by taking a pair of hyperbolas and spinning them around their
axes (Unfortunately, I don't know the name for such a surface). If
the two spheres appear simultaneously, the surface is a plane. If the
two spheres expand at different rates, the surface is an ellipsoid.

I think this problem may be a little beyond your educational level.
Sorry about that.

|
|
| > Perhaps you don't know what an equation is, Spookfeed.
| > In order to get to your precious "theory" and its cuckoo
transformations,
| > half-arsed Einstein wrote:
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
| > to which your reply is "What?"
| > The other half... Oh, never mind. You'd never understand it anyway.
| >
| >
| > Of course, relativity is summarised in the immoortel words of Humpty
| > Roberts, part author of the Relativity FAQs and
| > "This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant".
|
| I would call that Engineering where proof is completely irrelevant.

Tell that to an airline pilot, it is his life on the line. s..theads only
have
to risk reputation.


I will, if I'm ever in a conversation with a pilot who feels needs
PROOF that flying the plane incorrectly would cause the plane to crash.
I would try to convince him that he should follow his training, and
proof, in this case, is completely irrelevant.

|
| > Have you discovered the paper where H. A. Lorentz created Einstein's
cuckoo
| > transformations yet, or shall we wait until doomsday?
| >
| > Androcles.
|
| Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System Moving with Any Velocity Less
| Than That of Light
| H.A. Lorentz
| Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of Amsterdam, June 1904
|
| I'm still looking over it, because the equations he gives are not the
| same as the standard form.
|
| They are as follows:
|
| (3) c^2/(c^2-v^2) = beta^2
|
| (4) x'=beta*l*x, y'=l*y, z'=l*z
|
| (5) t'=l*t/beta - beta*l*v/c^2 * x
|
| Later he determines that l is a constant equal to 1.

(3) is Doppler inverted.

So Lorentz hasn't heard of cosmic muons.
In a race between a cosmic photon and a cosmic muon,
using the same distance and the same clock, muons
originate in the upper atmosphere and decay after 2.2 usec,
whereas cosmic photons (which do not decay) take 333 usec.
The cosmic muon is supposed to be a proof of time dilation,
since it is ASSUMED that the speed of the muon cannot exceed
the speed of the photon. The problem is the muon sees
the Earth coming toward the muon, the muon has no speed
in its own frame of reference. Thus the Earth doesn't decay
in 2.2 usec, it lasts for 4,000,000,000 years. Thank Lorentz
the Earth is still here. It decays next week if my calculations
are correct, but if not I'll readjust my gamma table.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/EnergySquare.htm
Androcles.

In any case. Lorentz said something about time in 1904. And you said,
with some conviction, he hadn't. You were wrong. That case is closed.


But then you also brought it up in an argument whereby you said
Einstein's was the only derivation of Lorentz transformation. As for
that question, you can get a copy for yourself, and decide whether
Lorentz derived the equation, or took the physics/engineering approach
of curve-fitting the data to an equation.

As such, I believe you were partially correct, despite having no
concept of what you were saying... though Lorentz was the first to find
the equations, he did not derive them in this article (opinions may
differ); he simply found an equation that fit the data. I would say (I
am guessing, as usual) that he probably did a significant amount of
derivation behind the scenes, but probably took steps which he chose
not to publish because they involved what he felt were revolutionary
and disturbing revelations about the nature of time. So he chose to
understate his discovery and present it as a data curve-fitting
problem. Such curve-fitting is quite popular in physics, and some
physicists take a very pragmatic view of this process, even going to
the extreme of saying such things as "proof is completely irrelevant."

Your argument that Einstein's is the ONLY derivation of the LTs,
however, is still wrong. Whether Lorentz published a derivation before
Einstein is interesting historically, but it is irrelevant to the
question of the existence of alternative derivations.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Light Clock Nonsense
    ... >>The Special Theory of Relativity according to Lorentz, ... > interpretation was slowly forgotten. ... |> affect the light clock in any way. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Where is the flaw?
    ... the two clocks (if synchronized on the train) would be different. ... | According to the theory of relativity, ... | velocity of the train relative to the observer, ... Your animation shows the back clock starting out behind and ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Where is the flaw?
    ... the two clocks (if synchronized on the train) would be different. ... | According to the theory of relativity, ... | velocity of the train relative to the observer, ... Your animation shows the back clock starting out behind and ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Where is the flaw?
    ... |> | velocity of the train relative to the observer, ... SR says the back clock starts out ahead and stays ahead. ... |> Cassini has a mirror to reflect light back to us? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Where is the flaw?
    ... |> relativity. ... |> | velocity of the train relative to the observer, ... SR says the back clock starts out ahead and stays ahead. ... |> Cassini has a mirror to reflect light back to us? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading