Re: SR fundamental contradiction

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

I reject the POR.
On what basis? The principle of relativity has been a
fundamental part of physics since at least the time of Newton.
It is consistent with all observations.


I don't reject Galilean relativity, what I reject is Einsteinian
relativity, based on
the hypothesis of the constancy of light speed.


Your equations can be used, but they single out one system as
preferred, and you lose the POR.

It is also a problem that your equations lead to the prediction
of *dilation* of moving objects.

Assume a stick of length L' at rest in S'. Let the left end be
at the S' origin. Then your equations give:
0=(x1-vt)/g
:: x1=vt
L'=(x2-vt)/g
:: x2=gL'+vt

Subtracting, we find the that length in S is L=gL'. The length
is expanded compared to its length at rest.


What my transformation predicts is that a moving stick is contracted
wrt a
stick at rest, i.e. L'=L/g.
Knowing the length L' of the moving stick, it is clear that the length
of the
stick at rest is L = gL', Iow, it is dilated in S.
Calling the moving stick a stick at rest, because it is at rest in the
moving frame S',
but forgetting that the rest frame remains S, is the type of logical
error systematically
made by SRists.

I am afraid you just lost a lot of ground. The rest length is
the length measured from a reference frame moving with the stick
(IOW, in which the stick is at rest).

This is exactly what I said: a stick comoving with S' is at rest in S'.

But, let's do it your way. A stick of length L in S is moving
with speed v to the right. The left end is x1=vt, and the right
end is x2=L+vt
The length of the moving stick is x2-x1=L. There is no change
in length for a moving stick.

Sure, in S, its length is L, in S', it is L'=L/g.



That is because they are not. The LT are internally consistent.

Ha! Ha!
You have yet to demonstrate a single inconsistency.



Not until you explain how you calculated these numbers.

One has g=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and t1'=t1/g, thus g corresponds to t1/t1'.
Similarly, g(LT) corresponds to t2/t2', with t2'= T/g.
We can calculate g(LT) from t2 = T(1 + v/c - v^2/c^2)
g(LT) = t2/(T/g) = g(1 + v/c - v^2/c^2)
Now we can compare the ratio g(LT) for different values of v.

Your g(LT) cannot be compared to g, because it was computed from
a different S time interval.

I compared g(LT) to g, simply because t2 = g(TL)*t2', by analogy with
t1 = gt1'.


You computed g from the interval from 0 to T, but you computed
g(LT) from the S interval from 0 to T(1+v/c-v^2/c^2), then
divided it by T. Your numbers are meaningless.


They are not meaningless, as t2 = g(TL)*t2'.
g(TL) should at least have a relation with g, that whould have a
physical meaning.


As far as I can see, g depends only on the velocity, and is the
same at every point.

Both g and g(LT) depend only on velocity.

No, you demonstrated a difference due to position. Your error
introduced a dependence on position.

One can explain the variation with v of the ratio g(LT)/g by referring
to the LT,
which is evident, as g(LT) has been derived from them, but you can't
give
it a coherent physical meaning. This proves that the LT are physically
incoherent.

To calculate the time dilation factor, you need to compare time
intervals between the systems.

Let us look at a stick of length L', at rest in S', and
calculate the S times when t' is 0 and T'.


You make again the same logical mistake, because S' remains the moving
frame.
Iow, the stick continue to move wrt the S-frame, even if one considers
it at rest
in the S'-frame.

I fully agree that a stick at rest in S' is moving in S. If I
made a logical mistake, then we made it together.

Then what is the purpose of stressing that the stick can be considered
at rest in the moving frame? Jumping from one frame to another, make
logical mistakes and draw wrong conclusions?

No, you do not have an alternate theory. You have a set of
ad-hoc equations, and they predict length expansion for moving
objects.

They are not ad hoc and they predict time 'dilation' and length
contraction,
not length expansion.
When you tried to derive your equations, you had to put in the g
factor by hand. You made an ad-hoc assumption about light speed
along y', without physical justification.


It is now the nth time that I claim that the physical justification for
y'=ct' is that
the vector v is perpendicular to the vector c, hence, vectorially,
c+v=c.

You obtained a result that is inconsistent with the results we
can obtain from considering the x direction alone (which
requires that a=1).

There must be some flaw in your assertion, as I obtain physically
meaningful
transformations.



Perhaps don't you realize that, when a moving clock shows a time
interval of
1 second when a clock at rest shows a time interval of 2 seconds, the
observer moving with the clock and reading 1 second will rightly claim
that
the observer at rest will read 2 seconds, even if the moving observer
considers
himself at rest.

You must be careful about your use of 'when', because they may
disagree about its meaning. I will make the disambiguating
assumption that the clocks are adjacent at the moment designated
by when for each of them.

Assuming the clocks are adjacent, they will agree about each
other's readings, but that does not allow them to compare
intervals. You must add to your example comparison of readings
at another time, if you want to compare intervals.

I didn't specify the details, as I was convinced that you would
perfectly
understand what I meant.
In order to get rid of the complications brought about by the fanciful
relativity of simultaneity, the direct consequence of the postulate of
light
speed constancy, let's take the well known exemple of the GPS clocks.
Neglecting the effects of the difference of gravitational potential
between
the satellite and the Earth, and assuming a non-rotating Earth, one is
left with a pure SR effect on the satellite clock, that I call clock1.
As clock1 is moving at v relative to an Earth clock0, its time is
slowed down by g, according to the relation t(clock1)=t(clock0)/g.
Notice that nobody ever used the 'time' LT t'=g(t-vx/c^2) to calculate
t(clock1) from t(clock0). In fact, the 'time' LT is useless.
Clock1 is of course at rest in the satellite. This doesn't change the
fact that
it is moving at v relative to clock0, hence that t(clock1) remains
equal
to t(clock0)/g, or that t(clock0) is still equal to g*t(clock(1).
Of course, SRists are tempted, illogically, to claim that, as clock1 is
at rest in the satellite, the satellite itself is at rest and the Earth
itself
is moving relative to the satellite, which allow them to calculate that
t(clock0)=t(clock1)/g, hence that t(clock1)=g*t(clock0), i:n plai:n
contradiction
with the former relation t(clock1)=t(clock0)/g, the only one which has
a physical meaning.

Marcel Luttgens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SR fundamental contradiction
    ... fundamental part of physics since at least the time of Newton. ... I don't reject Galilean relativity, ... What my transformation predicts is that a moving stick is contracted ... but forgetting that the rest frame remains S, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Problem with Einsteins Train Thought Experiment
    ... object is not moving directly towards the observer. ... There is no physics in the thought experiment. ... laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. ... relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
    ... >> physical length of a moving ruler is the same as that of the ... we observe that a clock records different elapsed time after a journey. ... >> different length in different frames. ... >> do physics will result different physical laws for different frames. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Cosmic Muons Paradox
    ... It is clear that in its short lifetime a muon ... Let there be a clock at the ground showing coordinate time of the ... object is moving towards the other, ... of relativity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR fundamental contradiction
    ... fundamental part of physics since at least the time of Newton. ... I don't reject Galilean relativity, ... What my transformation predicts is that a moving stick is contracted ... but forgetting that the rest frame remains S, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)