Personal Topic

[OceanBreeze]

Ok, here's a challenge for you. The Lorentz transformation derivation always uses light because light speed is invariant. Light has nothing to do with our spaceship or even airplane. Light just provides the constant that remains static for every observer.

So here's the challenge:  Can you derive the same equation that gives the same results as Lorentz, for objects moving at normal human speeds, without employing lightspeed as the constant?

 

 

Of course this can be done, but using sound as a reference makes no sense since sound waves require a medium to propagate.

 

Any observer moving with respect to that medium will record a different speed of sound; it cannot be a constant.

 

Also, at the low speed of sound there are no significant relativistic effects so a Galilean transform can be used. Relativistic effects are only apparent at speeds approaching c.

 

And, if I were to mathematically derive the Lorentz transform for you, using fundamental principles, I doubt very much you would understand any of it, so why bother? Do you have a working knowledge of hyperbolic functions?

[Moronium]

They employ light speed in the derivation of the LT equations. Its used as a pretext to jump into the use of Pythagoras theorem, in order to establish the relationship between the two "paths" that light is supposed to be taking, as viewed by each observer. This is of course pure hogwash.

 

 

I take it you're talking about the ever-faithful old "light clock" here.  This is often used to "prove" that time dilation is "reciprocal."

 

But this too is based only on the SR dictate that you MUST consider your own frame to be motionless.

 

Say I have light clock, right next to me, and I'm looking at a guy going .6c relative to me, who also has a light clock.

 

So I'm looking at his clock, and he's looking at mine.

 

I conclude that his clock is slower than mine.  But on what basis?

 

On the basis that I'm at rest and he's moving (certainly an "unproven" assumption).

 

If I assumed that I was the one moving, (which would mean that my clock was slower, not his) then his clock would still look exactly the same to me.  I can't "see" or "observe" that his clock is slower.  I can only deduce it (based on the postulates and calculational dictates of SR).

 

Just another example of question-begging.  First assume the postulates are absolutely true, then "show" that, if you accept them, they are absolutely true.

Edited February 10, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

David Morin, the Harvard physics prof, said this:  "nearly all of special relativity can be derived by invoking only the second postulate."

 

This is related to the difference between a principle theory and a constructive theory that Chem and I were talking about earlier.  You make a simple declaration, call it a postulate, and everything else follows.  It's basically all deduction.  If you accept the postulate, then everything else logically follows.

 

For clarity, here's how Morin describes the "second postulate:"

 

There is one more postulate in the Special Relativity theory, namely the “Relativity postulate”  (also called the Principle of Relativity). It is much more believable than the speed-of-light postulate, so you might just take it for granted and forget to consider it. But like any postulate, of course, it is crucial. It can be stated in various ways, but we’ll simply word it as:

 

• All inertial frames are “equivalent.”

 

This postulate basically says that a given inertial frame is no better than any other. There is no preferred reference frame.

 

 

So this is the "principle" in Einstein's "principle theory."  It's the "principle of relativity."

 

The same implications will follow from a given set of premises whether they are sound or unsound.  It's all just a matter of logic.

 

Elsewhere, Morin suggests that he's skeptical of the "truth" of Einstein's postulates.  Of course that doesn't stop him from teaching SR in good faith.  It's basically irrelevant.  All he's telling his students is "if this, then necessarily that."  That doesn't mean he's vouching for it.

Edited February 10, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Here's a passage I had in mind from Morin, pertaining to the first postulate:

 

We’ll start with the speed-of-light postulate:

 

• The speed of light has the same value in any inertial frame.

 

I don’t claim that this statement is obvious, or even believable. But I do claim that it’s easy
to understand what the statement says (even if you think it’s too silly to be true)

 

 

He's not saying it's "believable."  He's simply saying that if you want to believe it, then certain other things will follow.  Well, actually those other things would logically follow, whether you believe it or not.

 

 

Here's another passage which shows that SR disintegrates if you don't claim that time dilation is reciprocal. Put another way, every inertial "observer" in the universe must assume that he is at rest, and that the other guy(s) is/are moving

 

One might view the statement, “A sees B’s clock running slow, and also B sees A’s clock slow,” as somewhat unsettling. But in fact, it would be a complete disaster for the theory if A and B viewed each other in different ways. A critical fact in the theory of relativity is that A sees B in exactly the same way that B sees A.

 

 

 

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf

 

As "unsettling" as this proposition may be, you HAVE to accept it if you accept SR. If you don't it would be a "complete disaster" for SR.

 

Of course there's no law that you have to accept SR.  Me, I don't.  The passage above contains assumptions that, taken together, are, as a matter of physical fact, mutually exclusive and logically impossible.

Edited February 10, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

You see without cracking the anti-life equation and finding the real planck length over the real planck length squared, and realizing that time is space squared -  

 

Back with a new name, eh, Polly?  Hey, why did you delete all your posts about the "anti-life equation?"  They were rather entertaining, ya know?

[Moronium]

Ah...that Nazi GAHD, eh?  I see, now.

[Moronium]

Could ya, like, maybe drop a few more names, there, eh, Polly? Would that be possible?

[Moronium]

Moronium can argue rhetoric all day. 

 

I notice that, for some damn reason, God only knows what, but SOME reason, you don't have a word of response to the "rhetoric."  You simply dismiss it and move on to the "real" topic--Math and the anti-life equation

 

Typical.

[Moronium]

Because math liberates us from credulity and biased dogma.

 

Heh, liberates, eh?  I would say it "codifies" those things, or at least can.  Math can't give you "truth," apart from so-called "analytic truth."

Edited February 10, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Kant, among others, made a proper and important distinction between a priori (analytic) truth, and empirical (synthetic) truth.  He then asked the question:  Can the two ever "merge."

 

He could only think of one case where deductions from our postulated premises were also invariably "true" in the empirical realm, to wit:  Euclidean geometry.

 

Then along came Riemann, et al.  Now, suddenly, parallel lines will meet; triangles don't have angles which total up to 180 degrees; the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line, etc.

 

Damn!  There went that hope.

 

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. (Albert Einstein)

 

Edited February 10, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

There does, however, exist a geometry that does, in fact, represent reality.

 

that necessarily does not permit the exclusion of that variable, despite your minimalist rhetoric and irrelevant axiomatic garble.

 

Let me guess...it's all revealed in the anti-life equation, that it?

[Moronium]

We’ll start with the speed-of-light postulate:

 

• The speed of light has the same value in any inertial frame.

 

I don’t claim that this statement is obvious, or even believable. But I do claim that it’s easy to understand what the statement says (even if you think it’s too silly to be true).

 

(Dr. David Morin, Harvard U.)

 

 

Morin makes a valid point here, because in real life, and in every other branch of physics, no one (except kooks) actually believes this.  It is only SR apologists who pretend to believe it.  Under scrutiny, it is indeed "too silly to be true."

Edited February 10, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

For convenience, I'll repost this (post #493) here.

 

 

Does that "explain" anything for you?

It explains that Lorentz is a far more likeable fellow than Einstein. Due entirely to the fact that he was less likely to accept fantasy as if it was reality.

In summary, Would you say that Lorentz believed:

1. in the usefulness of the concept of an absolute origin, reference from which we can compare timing of events, and make as many local coordinate systems as we desire, allowing the description of the location for these LCS?  An absolute stationary frame of reference if you like, but due to Relativists use of the term, I don't like it, as they think its some real physical thing, capable of affecting matter. Reference frames can not affect Physics.

2. Time is an absolute concept, invented by man simply to allow the comparison of the flow from one event to the next, as we desire to notice them. Motion or the progression of physical processes allow us to create the counting of time.

3. Light speed is generally constant in a vacuum, (a perfect theoretical vacuum, not necessarily what we have in space) and its speed will be measured by a moving observer as "c" + or - the observers velocity.

 

Can you add anything else pertinent to the topic?

[Moronium]

Feynman once said that anyone who "understands" QM doesn't understand it.

 

I figure it's about the same with SR.  Anyone who thinks SR is "true" doesn't understand SR.

[Moronium]

In summary, Would you say that Lorentz believed:...

 

 

Can you add anything else pertinent to the topic?

 

Yeah, if I understand your summary, I agree that's what Lorentz believed.  He, like Poincare, (each of whom Einstein acknowledged himself to be highly indebted to) went to his grave denying the validity of SR (even though he and Al became very close).

 

I've said a TON more in this forum.  Anything particular?

Edited February 10, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Plot 3 of iteration 59 resembles a grail shaped spheroid in the third dimension - hence The Holy Grail.

 

Yeah!  The resemblance is unmistakable, eh?  Holy Grail, right there, sho nuff.

Edited February 10, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

Of course this can be done, but using sound as a reference makes no sense since sound waves require a medium to propagate.

 

Any observer moving with respect to that medium will record a different speed of sound; it cannot be a constant.

 

Also, at the low speed of sound there are no significant relativistic effects so a Galilean transform can be used. Relativistic effects are only apparent at speeds approaching c.

 

And, if I were to mathematically derive the Lorentz transform for you, using fundamental principles, I doubt very much you would understand any of it, so why bother? Do you have a working knowledge of hyperbolic functions?

Your comments are not useful to the discussion Moronium and I are having at the moment.

1/ Light requires a medium. Its called a vacuum. Spacetime fabric for you as a Relativist, is  " full of virtual particles that pop in and out of existance," (Lawrence Krauss) Aether for other folk.

2/ Sound can most certainly be substituted as a constant for light, and its way easier to measure. We already know way moore about sound waves than we do light, so a simple bit of Math by the moving observer will give him the corrected real vales for the speed of sound that he measures. The stationary observer does not need to compensate.

3/ You have not yet  proffered a hypothesis that there is such a thing a Relativistic effects yet.  We are currently looking at two hypotheses that should give us the same result, one using sound the other light speed as constants. So you dont get to dismiss the sound wave hypothesis with your light wave hypothesis till we see if they both work out similar results. The concept is the same for both, so if it works for light it will work for sound.  But it does not, showing us that we have done something wrong with the light based hypothesis.

 

4/  Your math is a mess, give me your rational, logical arguments before you butcher the math.