Re: SR fundamental contradiction


Brian Kennelly wrote:
mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Brian Kennelly wrote:

I will simply remind that the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Iow, my equations, even if you quibbled about their derivation, lead
straightforwardly to two physically well attested results, i.e.
length contraction and time dilation. And luckily, they have absolute
simultaneity.

Your equations put in length contraction and time dilation by
hand, while SR shows that they follow from the light postulate
and the principle of relativity.

Your transformations cannot be derived from any consistent
assumptions, unless g=1, in which case they reduce to the
Galilean.

Assuming g <>1 in your equations leads to transformation
equations that are different for each observer, and which
predict different effects for positive and negative velocities
for most observers. IOW, they have a built in preferred
reference system.

Why not?



Otoh, the Einstein transformation (the LT), precisely because they
predict the so-called relativity of simultaneity, a phenomenon that
by the way has never been proved, need the ad-hoc assumption that
t1'=t2' to derive length contraction.

That is not an ad-hoc assumption. You must mark both ends of a
moving object at the same time to measure its length.

If one measures the ends at the same time in the moving frame,
one gets for the same ends different times in the rest frame.
Imo, this proves that Einstein's postulate of the constancy of
light speed leads to incoherent results.


It is also possible to measure the length of a moving object, if
you know its speed, by measuring the time it takes to pass a
fixed point. Using this very natural method to measure length,
the LT lead to contraction of moving objects without the need to
invoke t1'=t2' or t1=t2.

Yes, but then, it is not so easy to show that the LT are inconsistent.


If one choose t1=t2, t1'<>t2'
and one doesn't get length contraction.

You don't get anything directly meaningful. It is similar to
measuring the time of a trip from LA to NY by using the local
time of departure and arrival. There is a systematic error that
skews the results. Each observer must consistently use his own
time reference.

Their predicted 'relative
simultaneity' is thus their rehibitory defect.

I do not agree. It would be a defect if it was possible to
demonstrate absolute simultaneity, but this has not been done.

Neither has the funny relative simultaneity been demonstrated.


But SRists,
unscientifically and illogically, will play down such lack of coherence
and continue to defend the validity of the LT.

The validity of SR must stand on its proven internal
consistency, and on its agreement with observation. On those
standards, it continues to be accepted.

Let us start with x1=vT, x2=cT, x1'=0, t1'=t2' and t1=T.

From t1'= g(t1-v^2T/c^2) and t1=T, one gets t1'=T/g, or t1'=t1/g, or
t1=gt1', meaning that the time measured by a clock situated at the
first end a stick situated in the rest frame S is 'expanded'
by a factor g relative to a clock at rest in the moving frame S'.
As t2'=t1', the time measured in S by a clock situated at the second
end of the stick is expected to be 'expanded' by the same factor g
relative to the corresponding time t2' measured in S'.
In SR, this is not the case.

You have already calculated t2, for instance in your 'long way'
derivation: t2=T(1-v^2/c^2+v/c).

One can now calculate the time 'expansion' ratio in S for the second
end of the stick.
It is expected that such ratio, that could be called g(LT),
should be identical to g, or, at least, that g(LT)/g should
coherently depends on v.

This is not the case:

With v=0.01, one gets g=1.00 and g(LT)=1.01.
With v=0.999, one gets g=22.37 and g(LT)=22.39.
So, for small and very big velocities, g and gLT are similar.

But for intermediate velocities, g(LT)/g varies noticeably with v:

v g(LT) g g(LT)/g
_ ___ _ _______

0.01 1.01 1.00 1.01
0.1 1.10 1.01 1.09
0.3 1.27 1.05 1.21
0.5 1.44 1.15 1.25
0.7 1.69 1.40 1.21
0.9 2.50 2.29 1.09
0.999 22.39 22.37 1.00

This suffices to demonstrate the internal inconsistency of SR.

If you have an alternative theory, you must enumerate its
assumptions, and demonstrate that it can explain the
observations as well as, or better than, SR.

It appears that your suggested transformations are inconsistent
with the principle of relativity. This alone does not make them
wrong, but you will need to provide some very strong arguments
for such a move.

An argument like the queer behaviour of clocks in the rest frame
is strong enough to 'falsify' SR.

An alternative theory is one that rejects Einstein's postulate,
and leads to time dilation and length contraction, which is the case
of my transformation.


Marcel Luttgens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SR Length Contraction - how do physicists explain this
    ... > Then you are not talking about relativistic length contraction. ... In the book "Introducing Einstein's Relativity" by Ray d'Inverno ... in the rest frame will be smaller than the rest length or proper ... relative to a moving frame the speed becomes zero (relative to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity
    ... it's length contracts along the axis of motion. ... Since the contraction was invoked to explain the ... Einstein: Relativity Demystified by ... Another reference is "Observation of Length by a Single Observer," by ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity: Entropy Increases as Velocity Increases!
    ... contracts along the axis of motion. ... should be obvious that length contraction along the axis of motion does ... Einstein: Relativity Demystified by ... Another reference is "Observation of Length by a Single Observer," by ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: STR contraction
    ... > In Weisskopf's Fig. 1 he shows that ABCD is NOT length contracted. ... It clearly isn't showing the relativistic contraction that ... the observer wuold measure on teh LHS .. ... relativity did not apply. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Contraction has been abolished by Special Relativity
    ... >> Contraction has been abolished by Special Relativity ... >> the formula of Lorentz. ... > rest" - exactly as done in Newtonian mechanics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading