Re: Who will stun the world as next Einstein?

From: Jeany (ctiei_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 02/27/05 

Date: 27 Feb 2005 07:02:35 -0800

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "Jeany" <ctiei@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109468962.712998.57610@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > I had a quick look at the suggestions, but I really have
> > > to interrupt you already, and you know the reason, since
> > > I explained it more than once. Perhaps you forgot.
> > > Before I look at anything else in (or about) the text, you
> > > obviously must make the necessasy corrections to the
> > > first section. Feel free to ask for advice if you have any
> > > doubts about finding the correct formulation of the ideas.
> > > When section 1.1 is fixed and okay, I will look at section
> > > 1.2. Good luck!
> > >
> > > Dirk Vdm
> >
> > Dear Mr. Dirk Vdm,
> >
> > Sorry for mistyping "theatrical" for theoretical in my last
> > message.
> >
> > I think the theoretical foundation of TAST consists of 3 parts,
1.1,
> > 1.2 and 2.2 of the text. It may form a complete theoretical logic
of
> > TAST.
> >
> > I would like you to look at 2.2 Basic property of analytical
space-time
> > in chapter 2 as well to know why it is called "ANLYTICAL". It
> > won't take you more than 5 minutes.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jeany
>
> To be honest, I think the word theatrical was more appropriate :-)
>
> As promised, I will look at 1.2 and beyond, as soon as you
> have fixed 1.1, and, in the process, prove to me that you really
> understand what you are talking about.
>
> Dirk Vdm

Dear Mr. Dirk Vdm,

These are what you posted:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
look carefully now:
The equation (1-3):
        L = L' sqrt(1-u^2/c^2)
says something about the L-coordinates of two events that
are simultaneous in the S-frame (in other words T=0).
Likewise, the equation (1-4):
       T = T' / sqrt(1-u^2/c^2)
says something about the T-coordinates of two events that
are colocal in the S'-frame (in other words L'=0)

If you use these two equations *together*, you say something
about two events that are simultaneous in the S-frame *and*
colocal in the S'-frame.
As you can clearly see, when you write
        L = L' sqrt(1-u^2/c^2),
then you immediately have
        T = 0,
and if you write
       T = T' / sqrt(1-u^2/c^2)
then you immediately have
        L' = 0.
So when you take everything together to write
        T L = T' L'
then you actually write
        0 L = T' 0
or
        0 = 0
which does not give much useful information.

If in SR you set up two coordinate systems S using
coordinates (L,T) for events, and S' using coordinates
(L',T') for the same events, and when the systems are in
relative movement with velocity u and the origins coincide
at event (0,0) for both systems, the following equations
hold together for every possible event:
        { L' = g ( L -u T ) [A]
        { T' = g ( T -u L / c^2 ) [B]
    with
        g = 1/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2) [C]
By solving for L and T, as you can verify, you get.
        { L = g ( L' + u T' ) [D]
        { T = g ( T' + u L' / c^2 ) [E]
These are valid for *all* events in spacetime.

In SR the phenomenon of length contraction of a rod
that is at rest in the primed system S', with length L'
in that primed system, is expressed by the equation
        L = L' / g = L' sqrt(1-u^2/c^2) [F]
As you can see from the universally valid equation [A],
which gives another relation between L and L', this must
imply T = 0. You can convince yourself of this by looking
at the act of measuring the lenght of the rod: when system
S measures the (moving) rod, he takes the left side of
the rod at event (0,0) and he must of course take the
other side at the same time according to *himself*,
namely at T=0, since it does not make sense to measure
a rod by looking where the endpoints are at different
times.

Likewise, in SR the phenomenon of time dilation of a
clock that is at rest in the primed system S', with time T'
between two of its ticks, is expressed by the equation
        T = T' g = T' / sqrt(1-u^2/c^2) [G]
As you can see from the universally valid equation [E],
which gives another relation between T and T', this must
imply L' = 0. You can convince yourself again by looking
at the act of measuring the time (in system S) between
two ticks of the (moving) clock. He takes the first tick
of the clock at event (0,0) and he must of course take
the other tick at the same place according to the *moving
system*, namely at L'=0, since there is no other way
to do it because the clock is going *with* the moving
system.

So these are, in SR, the *precise* circumstances under
which the equations
        L = L' / g = L' sqrt(1-u^2/c^2) [F]
and
        T = T' g = T' / sqrt(1-u^2/c^2) [G]
are valid.
If u <> 0, then equation [F] is valid if and only if T = 0,
and equation [G] is valid if and only if L' = 0.
So the two equations can only be combined in their
combined domain of validity, namely when
        T = 0 and L' = 0.
But this immediately implies
        T' = 0 and L = 0.

In other words, the only way (still in SR) to have equations
[F] and [G] which are your (1-3) and (1-4) valid together
(still assuming v <> 0), is when everything is zero, i.o.w.
when you are talking about a Rod With Zero Length, which
is Also a Clock That Does Not Tick.
So when you combine the equations to
        L T = L' T'
this can only be if everything is zero
        L = L' = T = T' = 0.

This is all basic standard special relativity.
If you have an objection to anything in particular, be
precise and try to tell me what your objection is and
why. And remember, we are talking about special
relativity.

Actually all this has nothing to do with any principle you might
have in mind.
This has only to do with your sentence:
    "Formulas (1-3) and (1-4) are the basic equations of STR."
That sentence, and the fact that you combine them into
     L T = L' T' ,
without realizing that in STR this is *only* valid in the trivial
case when
     L = L' = T = T' = 0 ,

the equations are only valid together when
        L = T = L' = T' = 0.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ok. As you said, you are talking about SR.

I repeat, I never said you were wrong in special relativity.

Please note: You said repeatedly that L T = L' T ' in SR would result
in L = L' = T = T' = 0 and you "proved" it by words only, as if you had
measured something in a UFO like a extraterrestrial man (a joke),
instead of by a math logic. I couldn't find any math derivation above
for it. Well, you may say it is a common knowledge in SR. I agree only
because of the need of being self-consistent in SR and consistent with
Lorentz transformation.

And in your equations from [A] to [G] above, you didn't tell the
difference between u and u', using u as "relative speed" only. It seems
that you don't understand why | u |<=| u'| in TAST. BTW, do you know
how the math expression of Lorentz transformation came?

Well, let us go onto the platform of TAST. According to the definitions
and math logic, I can't get that L T = L' T' in TAST would result in L
= L' = T = T' = 0 in all cases. However TAST covers a broader scope and
is not fully compatible with Lorentz transformation, as described in
the text of TAST "When u= - u' and cos(theta) =1, we'll come back to
Lorentz transformation", which means L = T = L' = T' = 0 when u= - u'
and cos(theta) =1. We can also say that when there is no space-time
deflection or that when deflection angle is zero, of course L = T = L'
= T' = 0 in TAST. So L = T = L' = T' = 0 is a special case of TAST. You
didn't see it in the text, did you?

Lorentz transformation is a special case in TAST and TAST
transformation includes Lorentz transformation. This is one of the
reasons of why TAST is a unified theory.

The author Dr. Cui Silong and you did the same work for above. The
difference is that Dr. Cui Silong did it on the platform of TAST and
you did it on the platform of SR. I would say both of you are correct
for the theories you support.

I would say again: The concept of TAST, as a unified theory, is
different from that of SR. Math logic is more convincing than literal
words in theoretical physics.

If you believe and assert "These are valid for *all* events in
spacetime" absolutely, you are never a true scientist.

As I said before, a new theory needs a revolutionary mind to
understand.

Good luck!

Jeany

Relevant Pages
Loading