Re: SRT lesson
From: Ken S. Tucker (dynamics_at_vianet.on.ca)
Date: 03/17/05
- Next message: Mitchell Jones: "Re: RIP Hans Bethe"
- Previous message: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: SRT lesson"
- Next in thread: mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu: "Re: SRT lesson"
- Reply: mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu: "Re: SRT lesson"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: SRT lesson"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 16 Mar 2005 16:43:04 -0800
To Mr. Aleksandar.
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> aleksandar.vukelja@gmail.com wrote:
> > I faced a really strange attempt by several posters yesterday to
> > disprove my ideas, published at http://www.masstheory.org
> >
> > As these gentlemen do not know SRT, but claim otherwise, I must
give
> > them a short lesson.
Well unless you want to over-through a lot
of good principles he'll need to consider
how GR's
ds^2= g_uv dx^u dx^v
is to be retained or modified.
If you care to discuss the value of that
equation, I'd be happy to do so.
The 3 stooges, aka, Bjeorn,Franz,Dirk, IIRC,
will argue that GR equation doesn't apply,
nevertheless every NG has an infestation,
of idiots.
To provide a counter balance to the well
known "3 Stooges", you should look at
Dovers "PoR", pg 119, Eq.3 and thus find
a new and improved means of solving 4D
problems, the well known stooges don't
known.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
>
> How did you learn SRT? On what basis do you claim that it is
> you who understands it correctly, and the others have got it wrong?
>
>
> > The SRT lesson to relativity supporters
> > ----------------------------------------
> >
> > Any number of points in a still inertial system x1, x2, x3,... xn
share
> > the same time t.
>
> Any number of points in the threedimensional sense, yes. Any number
of
> points in the fourdimensional sense, i.e. events, no.
>
> You keep missing this *crucial* distinction.
>
>
> > Any number of points in an inertial system moving
> > uniformly x1', x2', x3',... xn' share the same time t'.
>
> Dito.
>
>
> > I insist that this is the Special Relativity standpoint
>
> Then you are wrong, plain and simple.
>
>
> >- it allows for
> > different inertial systems to have different measures of space and
> > time, but entire inertial system shares "single" time.
>
> Every single inertial system shares the same time *rate*, in a sense.
> Nothing stops *events* in an inertial system from having different
times.
>
>
>
> > This allows us to write Lorentz equations in the form
> >
> > Dx' = Dx sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > Dt' = Dt / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>
> No, that is wrong, as explained in detail by Dirk. You mostly ignored
> his proof, and your few counterarguments were trivially wrong.
>
>
> > I found now on the web virtually the same explanation for this that
I
> > gave to Dirk yesterday. Please visit the
> > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html and
tell
> > me how is length contraction and time dilation formula explanation
> > different from the explanation I gave in the yesterday's thread
> > (subject: origin of inertia).
>
> Quite simple: in contrast to you, they do not claim that both formula
> are valid *at once*. The two formulas are special cases. The first is
> only valud for Dt = Dt' = 0, the second only for Dx = Dx' = 0. That's
> what you keep ingoring.
>
>
> > I gave equations, which are standard
> > physics textbook simplified Lorentz transformations.
>
> No, the equations above are *not* "standard textbook simplified
Lorentz
> transformations". They are *conclusions* from the Lorentz
> transformations *applied to two different special cases*.
>
>
>
> > What's the problem then?
>
> Read again Dirk's posts. Try to understand them this time.
>
>
> > ------------------------
> >
> > Dirk Van de Moortel has introduced a view that each point in THE
SAME
> > inertial system has its own time (x1, t1), (x2, t2), ... etc.
>
> In the same *fourdimensional* system, indeed.
>
>
> > And insists that this is the SRT point if view.
>
> This is already the view of Galilean relativity. SR did not change
it.
>
>
> > His interpretation, supported by several other posters, is that in
> > original Lorentz equations one can place a "delta" in front of
every
> > coordinate (which assumes that each point x1, x2,... has its own
time
> > t1, t2, etc. both for primed and non-primed coordinates), like
this:
>
> Hint: this is not simply an interpretation. He *proved* that. And he
> is completely right.
>
>
> > Dx' = g ( Dx - v Dt )
> > Dt' = g ( Dt - v Dx / c^2 )
> > with g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> >
> > Which results in claim that the example
> >
> > Dx' = 1/2 Dx
> > Dt' = 2 Dt
> >
> > can only be valid for
> >
> > Dx' = Dt' = Dx = Dt = 0.
>
> And that's exactly right.
>
>
>
> > Solution
> > --------
> > Come on people, there must be knowledgeable people reading this.
>
> Dirk *is* knowledgeable. Why do you persistenly refuse to understand
> his arguments, and keep thinking that you understand SR better than
him?
>
>
> > Regardless of my view that entire SRT is a historic joke of human
kind,
> > or perhaps YOURS that relativity is valid theory, NO supporter of
> > relativity should defend favorite theory by misrepresentation.
>
> And equally, no denier of relativity should attack it by
> misrepresentation. Unfortunately, that's what every single denier of
> SR I've seen so far has done.
>
>
> > Share your opinion!
>
> My opinion is that you don't understand SR. And not even Galilean
> relativity.
>
>
>
> Bye,
> Bjoern
- Next message: Mitchell Jones: "Re: RIP Hans Bethe"
- Previous message: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: SRT lesson"
- Next in thread: mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu: "Re: SRT lesson"
- Reply: mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu: "Re: SRT lesson"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: SRT lesson"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
