Re: A COMPARITION OF ACHIEVENENTS BETWEEN NEWTON AND EINSTEIN

On Aug 16, 5:52 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Stamenin" <task...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1187284957.299599.233450@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The observations done to the previous article are negative from all
participants. I am not convinst that are real, because of that I give
this article which shows that the LT is an approximation of the GT

NO .. GT is an approximation to LT.

MACHINE FOR TRAVELLING IN TIME.

This should be good for a laugh



We hade occasions to read in fiction literature, about time machines
that enable people to travel in time, toward the future, or toward the
past. The Lorentz transformation is not a time machine, but it enables
such traveling. An experiment that enables such traveling is the
following:
Let us consider a train in which we pose a man with a watch, and
another man equipped in the same way at the embankment.
The two coordinate systems let be K1 at the embankment, and K2 at
the train. If we take as dada in the coordinate system K2:
v2=108km/h=0.03 km/s
x2=1.892*10^22 km,
t2=60 s,
With the Lorentz transformation:
x1=1/R(x2+v.t2).......(1)
t1=1/R(t2+x2.v/c^2)....(2), we obtain:
R=(1-0.03/300,000^2)^0.5=1
From the relation (2) can obtain:
t1=(60+0.03*1.892*10^22/300,000^2)=60s+6.3072*10^10)=60+2000y.
So it shows that the man at the embankment went in the future at the
4006 year.

No .. in our frame, at any time (say now) he is great distance away and the
time is still now. He is not in our future or our past .. he is there now
.. a long way away, moving slowly

But .. if he had been travelling on that train from where we are to where he
is now, ie he started about 6*10^23 seconds ago by our clock but by his
clocks it was 2000 years less.

If the train will travel in opposite direction this man
should go 2000years in the past.

Not really .. but there by the time he gets back to us in around 6*10^23
seconds from now, he will have aged (relatively) a little less.

This is just the famous twins "paradox". We have observed this effect
happenning.

By varying the x2 the man could go in
every period he likes in the future or in the past.

Yes .. at different positions along his slow but lengthy journey from when
he started a long long time ago he would have been at different points in
our past. It would also be different points in his past. Due to time
dilation there is a (relatively) small difference in the elapsed time from
the start of his journey for him and for us, so that we would observe him as
being further in the past than us. Of course, as far as he is concerned, we
have been on a slow journey away from him .. so for him we are the ones who
are in the past realtive to him. Its really not unless either he or we
change direction and return that we get the twins paradox effect. If he
changes direction and returns, then he will end up having less elapsed time
than us when we meet .. if we start moving toward him then it is us who will
end up having less elapsed time than him when we meet .. if we both
accelerate toward each other equally, then the elapsed time will by the same
for both of us when we meet.

Is this possible? Of course it is, only if the Lorentz
transformation describes correctly the natural phenomena.

It does

If this is
possible we can have a very cheap time machine. Isn't it?

It might be cheap, but it is of no use at all.

But on the other side the known relations: t1=t2/R, and, t2=t1/R,

They are not the lorentz transforms

out of the fact that are contradictory

No .. the Lorentz transforms are not contradictory .. its very simple to
show that Lorentz transforms are symmetric. it can be a concept that is
difficult for many to get their minds around.

between them they do not
represent completely the variation of the time according to Einstein
SR theory,

That's right .because they are not the full lorentz transforms

and as we can see there exists a big mess.

Only in your understanding.

I would say that
SR offers bigger possibilities but all these possibilities can't
represent the truth at the same time.

That statement doesn't make sense.

That is why the SR could be
considered as being a false theory.

A faulty conclusion from your misunderstandings of SR.

I am sorry but all yours answers are based on the supposition that the
Lorentz transformation is
correct and I try to show that the Lorentz transformation is errant.
The example with the train is evidently an experiment done in real
conditions on the earth. It can be repeated practicaly in every
moment. The train is going with a real speed of 108km/h and there is
absolutly evident that cant be a word about a speed close to
c=300,000km/s.
To make the case with the Lorentz transformation clearer I give end
the following short article
about the incompatibily of the Lorentz transformation with the
Euclidean geometry.

THE EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY AND THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION


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
0102 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

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
results are false results. 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=t2.=t1/R
x2/R=x2
Or if we like separately we have the following relations:
t1=t2/R......5.
t1=t2.........6
t1=t1/R......7
t2=t2/R......8
t2=t1/R......9
x2=x2/R...10
So we can realize that there are represented the LT with the relations
5 and 9, the GT with 6, and absurd relations 7, 8 and 10.
So is this a mess or not?
17/08/2007.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ABOUT THE LT
    ... >>> THE TIME MACINE AND THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION ... >> Dirk Vdm ... I in my relations consider two coordinate systems K1 atached to the ... Einstein theory results that the simultaneity is a relative notion. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: arXiv endorsement request
    ... derivation Lorentz transformation using one space dimension. ... to that of the velocity, ... coordinates corresponds to the velocity of light in the other. ... On the other hand it seems to me that these two coordinate systems ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Shuberts Derivation of the Lorentz Transformations
    ... > related by the Lorentz transformation can be resynched ... > to get two new coordinate systems related by a Galilean ... So why do you imagine that Shubert made a mistake when he ... leaps from his Xi_2 universe to his Xi_3 universe? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)