Re: The article refers to the relativity.


Stamenin wrote:
THE EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY AND THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION

Many people are trying to find out that the Einstein relativity is a
false theory in light phenomena and in very difficult phenomena of the
GR, and not in SR and inspecially in the Lorentz transformation which
is the Einstein's starting position.
The affirmation that the Euclidean geometry is errant theory is an
astonishing assumption done by Einstein and it is a wonder how was that
possible not to be criticized by other scientists. How is possible to
negate that the sum of two segments AB and BC is not equal with AC.
__ __ __
AB + BC=AC
The only argument given for the support of this supposition, are the
magic words: "the evident is not evident". For the word evident
Einstein uses in his book a "stronger" word far better and
suggestive: holds.
He didn't take in consideration that evident means something
obviously plain and clean and something that can be seen. It is a
notorious truth that we can know everything about the nature, about our
environment, only if we can see it. How can we know what is the
infinity of the universe if we can't go there and see what alike is
that? The theories done on the base of experiments are done practically
by the use of the term evident because there is used the seeing and the
experiments in order to know what is going on.

01 02 M1
o----------------o--------------o-----x1, x2
Fig.1.

(This is a short presentation of the two coordinate systems K1 and K2.
01 and 02 are the origins of the two systems and M1 is the projections
of a material body that is moved with the speed v2 in the positive
direction.)
Einstein doesn't support the former assumption, that the Euclidean
geometry is erroneous with the aid of the theory of the relativity, for
example by using the Lorentz transformation. He left it apart as if it
is understandable by itself. Let us see what the Lorenz transformation
says about this question.
In fig.1 are represented the two coordinate systems of
coordinates, K1 and K2 considered as being inertial systems. The Lorenz
transformation considering that the
motion is done only in the direction of the coordinates x1 and x2 are:
x1=(1/R) (x2+v.t2)........(1)
x2=(1/R)(x1-v.t1).........(3)
t1=(1/R)(t2+v.x2/c^2)....(2)
t2=(1/R)(t1-v.x1/c^2).....(4)
Where R=squr(1-v^2/c^2).
Making an analogy between the segments AB and BC, with the segments
01,02 and 02M1 shown in fig.1 we can obtain the following results.
From the relation (1) of the Lorenz's transformation we can obtain:
0102=(1/R)(v.t2)
0102=v.t1
02M1=x2/R
From the relation (3) of the Lorenz's transformation we can obtain:
0102=v.t1/R
0102=v.t2
02M1=x2/R

So we can put now all these results together, considering that the two
segments must have a unique length.
0102=v.t2/R=v.t1=v.t2=v.t1/R

02M1=x2/R=x2
Having so many solutions for the above segments we are obliged to put
the following question: Have the two segments one unique length, or
not. If they have more values as it is seen from the above relations,
then the picture at the fig.1 is not correct and has to be modified.
And in addition we have to explain what about these values and how must
be represented in a new picture fig.1. If we admit that the above
segments have one unique length than we can conclude that all these
relations are false relations. This conclusion brings us to another
important conclusion that the Lorenz transformation is a false
relation, and it doesn't represent the truth about the mechanical
motion of the material bodies.
On the other hand, if we divide these solutions with the speed (v),
would have: t2/R=t1=t1/R=t2.
Somebody could say that I didn't take in consideration the relativity
of the time.
I must say that these relations are obtained because we took the Lorenz
transformation as a base in our calculations and for that we have the
two terms for the time t1 and t2. On the other hand I can say that I do
have analyzed this problem at the part where was treating the Lorenz
transformation and I concluded there that the relativity of the time is
a joke of the mathematics, that is, a joke of the Lorenz
transformation. And really if we consider that the time is a relative
size, in that case we obtain the two relations noted there with the
numbers (5a) and (6a).
t1=t2/R.......(5a)
t2=t1/R........(6a)
It is interesting that these two relations appear and in this analyses.
From the relation (5a) we can obtain the inverse relation:
t2=R.t1....(5b)
And from the relation (6a) can obtain the relation:
t1=R.t2....(6b)
If we consider that the Einstein theory is valid, we have to put there
a rule a ban that shall forbid the change of a term from one side to
another in a mathematical relation. Because according to the Einstein
theory the relations (5b) and (6b) are not valid. This is unique case
in mathematics when appears such a ban. This means that we have to do
changes in mathematics if we like to accept the Einstein theory of the
relativity as valid. So remains the conclusion that the contradiction
between the relations (5a) and (5b) and the relations (6a) and (6b) is
impossible to be solved if we accept the relativity of the time.
The contradiction between the two relations (5a) and (6a) from one
side and the relations (2) and (4) of the Lorenz transformation from
the other side appears again. And we must ask ourselves, which of them
are correct, the relations (2) and (4) of the Lorenz transformation, or
the two relations (5a) and (6a).
About the relations t1=t2 that appears two times I thing is not
difficult to see that it shows that Galilei's transformation is the
correct transformation.
What can we conclude about all these contradictory results, obtained
by the application of the Lorenz transformation? It is evident that all
these results are so contradictory that there doesn't exist any
possibility to accept the Lorenz transformation as being valid for the
description of the mechanical motion of the MATERIAL BODIES. Once again
we are obliged to conclude that the Einstein theory of the relativity
is a false theory.
On the other hand we can be sure that the Euclidean geometry is
absolutely correct theory and it gives the absolute truth about the sum
of two segments in a right line.


Vancouver.

Apparently neither science nor math nor English is your first language.
The problem with your perverted analysis is that SR is entirely
Euclidean. So if it falls, so does classical mechanics.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: About the LT and the Euclidean geometry
    ... astonishing assumption done by Einstein and it is a wonder how was ... for example by using the Lorentz transformation. ... In fig.1 are represented two coordinate systems K1 and K2 ... Making an analogy between the segments AB and BC, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • ABOUT THE PRINCIPLE OF THE INVARIANCE APPLIED TO GT AND LT
    ... THE EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY AND THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION ... astonishing assumption done by Einstein and it is a wonder how was ... Making an analogy between the segments AB and BC, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • The article refers to the relativity.
    ... THE EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY AND THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION ... Many people are trying to find out that the Einstein relativity is a ... negate that the sum of two segments AB and BC is not equal with AC. ... Let us see what the Lorenz transformation ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The article refers to the relativity.
    ... | THE EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY AND THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION ... | negate that the sum of two segments AB and BC is not equal with AC. ... Let us see what the Lorenz transformation ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • ABOUT A NEW MORE GENERAL TRANSFORMATION
    ... Is the Lorenz transformation more general transformation then Galilei ... Einstein considers that the Lorenz transformation is more general ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)