Arguing Einstein

[xersan]

The distance D = S0S1 = O0S0 is measured relative to an observer with velocity 0

Relative to S or O, this distance is D’ = D*((1-(v/c)^2)^.5)

 

Calculate the distance S0O0 using this, and you’ll get the usual result for t’

 

Please write your procedure by a post; I can't find a significant result.

[xersan]

===> t’ = t{1 + (v/c)2}1/2 The tempo of time become faster??????????????

 

ONE STEP BEYOND (3)

 

İt means that this arguement is the end of the theory SR.

This discussion is an AUTOPSY FOR THE THEORY SR

 

Because:

 

1- We can find a different result when we put the source at different place.

2- Einstein had sad that the deformation of dimension is not became for perpendicular direction according to directionof the train. But this setting gives time deformations.

3- Einstein had analyzed the parallel light of train; and he had claimed that Lorentz's equations give the formula of time dilation (I explain the procedure of this formula at the # 34). But the equations of Lorentz never give this formula (This new issue has determinated by me) Please try it.

 

Note: This explanations (One step beyond) were taken from my book that its name is "Made-up Science Under the Auspices of the Passion of Mystery"

[Erasmus00]

3- Einstein had analyzed the parallel light of train; and he had claimed that Lorentz's equations give the formula of time dilation (I explain the procedure of this formula at the # 34). But the equations of Lorentz never give this formula

 

Lorentz transformations for motion along the x axis.

x' = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) [x-vt] (1)

 

t'= 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)[t-vx/c^2] (2)

 

Consider events that happen at the same place (xo) but different times. (t1) and (t2). We will calculate t'1 and t'2.

 

t'2 = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)[t2-(xo)v/c^2]

t'1=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)[t1-(xo)v/c^2]

 

Subtracting the second from the first, and calling t'2-t'1 = delta t' and t2-t1 = delta t, we get

 

delta t' = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)[delta t]

 

This is the familiar formula for time dilation derived (rather simply) from the Lorentz transformations. Because of the freedom to orient the x axis, the result is completely general.

-Will

[xersan]

Lorentz transformations for motion along the x axis.

x' = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) [x-vt] (1)

 

t'= 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)[t-vx/c^2] (2)

 

Consider events that happen at the same place (xo) but different times. (t1) and (t2). We will calculate t'1 and t'2.

 

t'2 = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)[t2-(xo)v/c^2]

t'1=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)[t1-(xo)v/c^2]

 

Subtracting the second from the first, and calling t'2-t'1 = delta t' and t2-t1 = delta t, we get

 

delta t' = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)[delta t]

 

This is the familiar formula for time dilation derived (rather simply) from the Lorentz transformations. Because of the freedom to orient the x axis, the result is completely general.

-Will

 

ONE STEP BEYOND (4)

 

Thanks for your adding and opportunity for thinking one step beyond.

 

Your procedures seem perfect/faultless.

 

But I want to offer thinking one step beyond. Probably we can perceive the trap for lojic.

 

We remind open defining of the parameters of the theory SR:

 

x = The value of distance from origin (of reference system) along x axis for the flashlight

t =The value of time dimension for the flashlight according to reference system.

 

x’ = The value of distance from origin (of relative system) along x’ axis for the same flashlight (x and x’ axis are parallel)

t’ = The value of time dimension for the same flashlight according to relative system.

 

v = The speed of relative system according to reference system.

 

x / t = x’/ t’ = c The basic postulate of the theory

 

v becomes never zero for special relativity.

 

Now, we calculate the values of parameters for t1 = 1 second

 

x = c.t = c . 1 ; sqrt (1 – v2/c2) : term of Moderation = M

 

x1’= (c.1 – v.1) / M = c(1- v/c) / M

 

t1’= {1- (v/c2).c.1} / M = (1-v/c) / M (x1’/ t1’ = c The mother condition has obtained)

 

 

(x = x’ = t = t’= 0 for to = 0):

 

 

The true result for t1’ is at following : t1’ = (1-v/c) / sqrt (1-v2/c2) ; Not 1/ sqrt (1-v2/c2)

 

(If we have still some suspicion we may make numerical example. Same result will be obtained.)

 

Einstein had fallen into a trap like you. Perhaps he used a trick. I don’t know. But I can think so. Because I have some reasons : The familiar formula for time dilation can be derived by the set that I had explained at # 34 with flashlight at perpendicular direction. Unfortunately Einstein had claimed that a time dilation is impossible for the light toward perpendicular direction according to orbit of relative system.

 

I will wait your interpretations.

[Southtown]

So to summarize up until the "final bit", your program is to, in a particular reference frame, take the worldlines of all of the entities in interest, and then replot them by replacing the coordinate time parameter with the proper time parameter, and note that the coordinate time of the original reference frame can be recovered as Euclidean arclength in this new representation.

 

Right?

Absolutly correct!

You sir, have just infected my current studies of relativity. ;) Thanx a bunch. I'll not understand the full ramifications for quite a while, but they will be some of the more worthy concepts I will pound my head against for the foreseeable future. I also hope to see some of the more capable minds here at Hypography attack this subject soon and unwrap its most profound ramifications.

[DrProctopus]

So, is this basically a method of viewing the events described by relativity with an absolute time reference?

[Doctordick]

So, is this basically a method of viewing the events described by relativity with an absolute time reference?

No, it is not. :hihi:

Edit: I have made a major error here. I have confused time and tau. Sorry about that, but it is still not a method of viewing the events described by relativity with "an absolute time reference"; no more than a specific lay out of events in a specific Einsteinian space-time frame can be thought viewing relativity with an absolute time reference.

 

The only time references within the model are path lengths in the geometry and thus are only available to the entity on that path. Time is a meaningful physical parameter only to an entity on that exact path; that is quite a bit less than a concept of "absolute time". Two different entities can interact but it is not at all required that they agree about the time: i.e., it is completely consistent with relativity in that the reading on that clock does not determine the possibility of an interaction. :D

 

By the way, both systems (both Einstein's geometry and mine) allow one to describe how any problem appears within any specific classical coordinate system; that is the very central issue of "relativity" itself. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand what relativity is all about. ;)

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[Erasmus00]

Doctordick,

It seems to me that the advantage to Einstein's geometry is that his arc length (ds or d[tau] as you will) is an invariant. dt is not, so vector analysis falls apart. Transformations don't preserve your dt^2 interval.

-Will

[Turtle]

___I read the paper & in general understood the establishment of this view as geometrically different; I don't have the math accumen to draw any conclusions on all of the ramifications. Nonetheless, persistence seems merited; if for no other reason, I like the iconoclastic approach.

___You go Doctordick! :hihi:

[Doctordick]

[

It seems to me that the advantage to Einstein's geometry is that his arc length (ds or d[tau] as you will) is an invariant. dt is not, so vector analysis falls apart. Transformations don't preserve your dt^2 interval.

Ah, but you are wrong. In his geometry d[tau] is invariant and dt is not and vector analysis does indeed fall apart; however, in my geometry, dt is an invariant (it's plane old four dimensional Euclidean geometry and dt is a simple differential along a path). The complication in your mathematics comes about when you have to deal with quantized mass (momentum in the tau direction). That probably takes more mathematics than you are ready to deal with. But I will guarantee one gets exactly the same consequences one obtains in the standard approach. :hihi:

 

The simple conceptual result is arrived at by realizing that mass quantization simply projects out the tau component of the geometry. If you want to picture this phenomena in your head, just do a two dimensional problem (where you can ignore the z axis) and replace the z axis with a tau axis. When you are finished, just project out the tau axis and look at the result.

___I read the paper & in general understood the establishment of this view as geometrically different; I don't have the math accumen to draw any conclusions on all of the ramifications. Nonetheless, persistence seems merited; if for no other reason, I like the iconoclastic approach.

___You go Doctordick! :D

Thanks for the support but, after looking at your integer analysis, I was hoping your mathematics talents were sufficient to follow my work. I hope you are being modest. By the way, "all the ramifications" are not that easy to deduce quickly. Maybe you understood more than you are letting on. :D

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[CraigD]

Please write your procedure by a post; I can't find a significant result.

I'll try to post a clear demonstration later today - I've got it all on paper, but need to pretty it up for public consumption. It might be best to hold off on further pronouncments of the death of SR for a little bit. :D

 

:hihi: You really gave an interesting example, which had me scribbling and scratching my head for hours! If it’s not in introductory textbooks on SR, IMHO it should be – it’s an excellent example of examining the theory with careful skepticism. However, as my post will show, it is possible to reconcile with the theory, using nothing more complicated than 9th-grade math.

[xersan]

You sir, have just infected my current studies of relativity. :hihi: Thanx a bunch. I'll not understand the full ramifications for quite a while, but they will be some of the more worthy concepts I will pound my head against for the foreseeable future. I also hope to see some of the more capable minds here at Hypography attack this subject soon and unwrap its most profound ramifications.

 

ONE STEP BEYOND (5)

 

1- The problem of space-time had could be analyzed simply, but if he had not disordered the minds. He was very clever; even crazily.

2- An aphorism say that:

“ A mad man throw a stone into a well; forty wise men can not take it out."

[xersan]

Subtracting the second from the first, and calling t'2-t'1 = delta t' and t2-t1 = delta t, we get

 

delta t' = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)[delta t]

 

This is the familiar formula for time dilation derived (rather simply) from the Lorentz transformations. Because of the freedom to orient the x axis, the result is completely general.

-Will

ONE STEP BEYOND (6)

 

If your procedure and familiar formula for time dilation are correct, it requires to give the value of < c > by numerical example at above:

 

We select the values of parameters as follow: t = 5 sec. v = 0.60 .c

 

With your formula

 

delta t’ = 1 / sqrt (1 - v2/c2) delta t = 5 / 0.8 = 6.25 sec (The light had travelled for 6.25 sec in relative system.) Attention please; time tempo becomes faster t’ > t.And the length of light’s way in relative system:

 

x’ = 1 / sqrt (1 – v2/c2)(x – vt) = (5.c - 5.o.60 .c) / 0.80 = 2.5 c

 

The velocity of light in relative system:

 

C’ = x’/ t’ = 2.5 c / 6.25 = 120 000 km / sec false! Familiar formula never gives the value c.

 

Correct procedure gives that formula for time dilation:

 

t’ = (1 – v/c) .t/ sqrt (1 – v2/c2)

accordıng thıs essential formula:

t' = 0.40 . 5 / 0.80 = 2.5 sec. ===> c = x'/ t' = 2.5 c / 2.5 = c (OK)

 

Numerical examination verifies the theory. Einstein had given wrong formula. In the correct formula of time dilation for the theory SR the characteristic of time deformation is related by direction of light or source. Same directions give time dilation; but the opposite directions give TIME CONTRACTION.

[Erasmus00]

[Ah, but you are wrong. In his geometry d[tau] is invariant and dt is not and vector analysis does indeed fall apart; however, in my geometry, dt is an invariant (it's plane old four dimensional Euclidean geometry and dt is a simple differential along a path). The complication in your mathematics comes about when you have to deal with quantized mass (momentum in the tau direction). That probably takes more mathematics than you are ready to deal with. But I will guarantee one gets exactly the same consequences one obtains in the standard approach. :hihi:

 

I'm a grad student in physics, so I'm willing to follow quite a bit of math. Now, the Lorentz transformations preserve d[tau]^2 = dt^2 -dx^2-dy^2-dz^2 (in units where c = 1). However, if you move x, y and z to the other side as you suggest you get:

dt^2=d[tau]^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2. Now, d[tau]^2 is invariant, a constant, and the length of space vectors dx^2+dy^2+dz^2 is certainly not invariant, so dt^2 is NOT invariant under Lorentz transformations. As such, your vector is improperly defined, Lorentz transformation no longer preserve arc length.

-Will

[CraigD]

... ===> t’ = t{1 + (v/c)2}1/2 The tempo of time become faster??????????????

Please write your procedure by a post; I can't find a significant result.

I'll try to post a clear demonstration later today - I've got it all on paper, but need to pretty it up for public consumption. It might be best to hold off on further pronouncments of the death of SR for a little bit. :D

 

:hihi: You really gave an interesting example, which had me scribbling and scratching my head for hours! If it’s not in introductory textbooks on SR, IMHO it should be – it’s an excellent example of examining the theory with careful skepticism. However, as my post will show, it is possible to reconcile with the theory, using nothing more complicated than 9th-grade math.

The promised post is at the start of a new thread ”Resolving an apparent problem with the theory of Special Relativity”. I believe it explains the trouble.

[Doctordick]

Sorry Will, I misunderstood where you were having your difficulty. Did you take a look at my paper referred to by Southtown? That would be "Resolution of the Relativity/Quantum Mechanics Conflict". If you have read it, I don't think you have read it very carefully. I hold that "time" and "what clocks measure" are quite different. I think you are confusing "what clocks measure" with my parameter "t". :hihi:

 

The issue is not as simple as you take it to be. You are trying to use the special relativistic transformations blindly without looking into the exact issue of how things appear. Similar to the problem people indoctrinated with Newtons perspective have trying to examine the actual appearances of phenomena from a relativistic perspective. Both of you want to jump to standard transforms without examining them carefully. I think if you look at the parameterized perspective I gave to Hurkyl you will have a better understanding of the nature of the transformation to my geometry. That would be the four posts starting with this one.

 

You might comment on my discussion with turtle from time to time as it will lead to exactly the answers to your dilemma. :D

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[Erasmus00]

Sorry Will, I misunderstood where you were having your difficulty. Did you take a look at my paper referred to by Southtown? That would be "Resolution of the Relativity/Quantum Mechanics Conflict". If you have read it, I don't think you have read it very carefully. I hold that "time" and "what clocks measure" are quite different. I think you are confusing "what clocks measure" with my parameter "t". :hihi:

 

But if your t parameter is different then Einstein's, then why derive your geometry from his by rearranging t and tau. If Einstein's measure of time is different then yours, you cannot use Einstein as your starting place.

-Will