Lorentz's transformations have an unsolved mathematical problem

[xersan]

FIRST TIME ON THE WORLD (1)

 

Lorentz's transformations have an unsolved mathematical problem. This problem confuses human minds and the theory of SR can be alive for 100 years due to this mistake.

 

Human mind is lineer and convenient to confuse. And it is engaged to imbibe the postulates which attend to incite the passion of mysticism.

 

It ıs interesting that the world of science can not still perceive this problem and the confusions and discussions about SR are continued. Because somebody can catch an inapppropriateness.

 

I want to give a clue: There is a nuans between the formula and equation.

[EWright]

FIRST TIME ON THE WORLD (1)

 

Lorentz's transformations have an unsolved mathematical problem. This problem confuses human minds and the theory of SR can be alive for 100 years due to this mistake.

 

Human mind is lineer and convenient to confuse. And it is engaged to imbibe the postulates which attend to incite the passion of mysticism.

 

It ıs interesting that the world of science can not still perceive this problem and the confusions and discussions about SR are continued. Because somebody can catch an inapppropriateness.

 

I want to give a clue: There is a nuans between the formula and equation.

 

How 'bout a clue in ENGLISH!!!!

[xersan]

How 'bout a clue in ENGLISH!!!!

ONE STEP BEYOND (7)

 

I will work to explain that Lorentz’s transformations have not the scientific integrity.

 

In the well-known experiment of SR it is taken aim to obtain the same value of < c > in the train and on the perron. We will use this experiment also. If you wish you may take the world instead of the train. We measure the velocity of light on the world by the units kilometer and second. And its value is 300 000 km/s.

 

The train travels by the speed of < v >.

 

Lorentz’s equations transform the values of units. For example; if v = 60 % c

 

L’ = L.sqrt (1 –v2/c2) = 0.80 L

 

t’ = t (1 – v/c) / sqrt(1 – v2/c2) = 0.5 t

 

It means : One unit of meter in the train is 0.80 meter according to observer on the perron. And we must call the units according to its place (reference or relative system):

 

The unit of length in train = trainmeter ( = 0.80 railmeter ; for v = 0.60 c )

The unit of time in train = trainsecond (= 0.5 railsecond; for v = 0.60 c)

 

The unit of length on perron = railmeter ( = 1.25 trainmeter; for v = 0.60 c)

The unit of time on perron = railsecond ( = 2 trainsecond ; for v = 0.60 c)

 

Now we use Lorentz equations for t = 5 railsecond

 

x = c. t = 300 000 . 5 = 1 500 000 railkm ( c = 300 000 railkm/railsecond)

 

x’ = (x – vt) / sqrt (1 – v2/c2) = 600 000 / 0.80 = 750 000 trainkm

t’ = (t – vx/c2) / sqrt (1 – v2/c2) = 2 / 0.80 = 2.5 trainsecond

 

And our aim has obtained: c = x’ / t’ = 750 000 / 2.5 = 300 000 trainkm/trainsecond

 

It means we can assure the fixed value of the light’s speed by the units in relative system. We can calculate it by the units in reference system:

 

300 000 trainkm / trainsecond = 240 000 / 2 = 120 000 railkm / railsecond

 

What is this ? This is an evidence of the end of the theory SR. Because The units must be same to obtain the same fixed value of light’s velocity. This like that: If You give to your child every week 50 USD. After today you will may give him 50 japanese-yen according to Einstein.

[Jay-qu]

This is an evidence of the end of the theory SR...

 

It may be 1am, i may be pissed, and i havent even finished high school! but i still think that it isnt the end for SR just yet... not at the hands of you at the least!

[UncleAl]

This problem confuses human minds and the theory of SR can be alive for 100 years due to this mistake.

Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers and with arithmetic.

 

You are horribly wrong - disproven by every particle accelerator plus the Global Positioning Satellite system and even large color TV's.

 

http://www-elsa.physik.uni-bonn.de/accelerator_list.html

accelerators

http://bkocay.cs.umanitoba.ca/Students/Theory.html

The distorted cube

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html

http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf

http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012

Hafele-Keating Experiment

 

Given any achievable velocities V1 and V2 and any finite lightspeed, the bound on the relative velocities of V1 and V2 as viewed by any inertial observer cannot exceed

 

(V1 + V2)/[1 +(V1)(V2)/c^2]

 

This is transformation of velocities parallel to the direction of motion. For velocities at an arbitrary angle theta, Jackson gives

 

u_parallel = (u'_parallel + v)/(1+(v dot u')/c^2)

u_perp = u'_perp/(gamma_v(1+(v dot u')/c^2))

 

http://www.physics.umanitoba.ca/~souther/waves02/feb0402/sld011.htm

 

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-04/2-04.htm

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/reldop2.html

http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~rfield/PHY2061/images/chp39_2.pdf

Relativistic doppler shift

 

Special Relativity is empirically true to the limits of experimental uncertainty - not a single instance of failure in 100 years of vigorous looking at any scale in any venue. You have nothing to replace it, and so are a crackpot by demonstration.

[xersan]

<Unnecessary long quote removed.>

 

Thanks for your additions. My aim is never to provoke anybody. I am thinking by a different format.

And I have strong keys to resolve space time. My new paradigm for light kinematics is concistent and serviceable for cosmology.

 

I prefer always to solve step by step. Usually most brains have blinker as some axioms. And it is diffucult to pass over this false axioms under influence of general agreement.

 

I want to present to you a key (clue) from my format: The source is never the fırst reference system for the light. If you accept that the source is the first reference system. It is a false axiom like the axiom of <the world is flat>. The source flashes the flashlight at the moment of To and the source goes to anywhere by independence from light. The velocity of light according to its source is not significant.

[xersan]

Congratulations for your interest. The mistakes of SR are at degree of primary school. If you wish you may analyse my this claim under the thread of < Time dilation on football game>. The light begin to travel from the point of So at the moment of To. And it is perceived on the point of O1 at the moment of T1. The light travels between So and O1 for the time t = T1 - To. This explanation is authentic. But the theory takes the point of S1 by the beginning of light instead of So. It is very simply. And you please think that the light is a flashlight like a point in this procedure.

[xersan]

ONE STEP BEYOND (8)

 

If the value of < c > was obtained 750 000 trainkm/trainsecond (by these units) this value would become equivalent to the value of 300 000 railkm/ railsecond.

 

C = 300 000 railkm/railsecond = 750 000 trainkm/trainsecond

 

It like that: 1 kilometer = 0.6214 statemile = 0.5396 nautmile

 

If the units differ, the amount must be changed to obtain same characteristic. 300 000 trainkm/ trainsecond is never the value of light’s velocity.

 

Lorentz’s equations were derived by considering that any object takes place at only one point at the moment of Ti. Lorentz had neglected to distinguish the nuans between formula and equation. Formulas consider the units, also the units of formula are consistent. But equations are not interested by the units.

 

Is there a formula to transform the units ? No. Because, the units of parameters in any formula must be consistent by itself. It is an unsolved problem of math-phy.

[Qfwfq]

If the value of < c > was obtained 750 000 trainkm/trainsecond (by these units) this value would become equivalent to the value of 300 000 railkm/ railsecond.

 

C = 300 000 railkm/railsecond = 750 000 trainkm/trainsecond

 

It like that: 1 kilometer = 0.6214 statemile = 0.5396 nautmile

 

If the units differ, the amount must be changed to obtain same characteristic. 300 000 trainkm/ trainsecond is never the value of light’s velocity.

Usually the units of measurement are chosen for c = 1. Not 1 times a unit of length over a unit of time but plain pure 1.

 

Lorentz’s equations were derived by considering that any object takes place at only one point at the moment of Ti.

Nope. :hihi:

 

In SR an event is a point of space-time but a particle is not. A particle is represented by a world line.

 

Lorentz had neglected to distinguish the nuans between formula and equation.

Which nuance?

 

You would need to make your meaning clearer. I understand you aren't writing in your native tongue, but you must make a better effort if you make claims such as these. Ordinarily these boards are meant for discussing science which is quite accepted or perhaps proposing plausible innovations. For other cases there is the Strange Claims Forum. If you can't support your claim soon enough it will be moved there.

[xersan]

 

Which nuance?

 

You would need to make your meaning clearer. I understand you aren't writing in your native tongue, but you must make a better effort if you make claims such as these. Ordinarily these boards are meant for discussing science which is quite accepted or perhaps proposing plausible innovations. For other cases there is the Strange Claims Forum. If you can't support your claim soon enough it will be moved there.

I had explained the nuance before. I am writing again for you. I beg your pardon for my poor English.

 

The parameters have their units ( *) in formulas; but, it is not required to have units for parameters in an equation.

 

( *) And these units must be consistent for the result of procedure. The values of results are significant with their units. Every number of < 300 000 > is not the velocity of light. But Lorentz and Einstein had aimed to assure the number of 300 000. You will see it if you try. You may test by numerical examples. You wıll be amazed.

 

Lorentz’s equations can not obtain consistency for units, because his equations are responsible for transforming the units. There is an unsolved mathematical problem at this point.

 

Are you a judge for Galileo’s judgment?

 

If a claim is strange for you, it is your personal problem. The wrong is wrong even if 99 persons of 100 persons say that < It is right>. You must like your strange ideas. Remember, everybody had said that < the sun turns around the world>. Probably I submit the reality, you can not know. But If you wish you follow me.

 

I believe that you have consciousness of toleration..

 

I am sorry because failures of SR are very simple, it requires only neutral vision.

[CraigD]

Xersan, in order for me (and others at scienceforums) to better understand your beliefs about physical reality as it relates to the Theory of Special Relativity, please consider the following experiment, and answer the few questions that follow.

 

2 atomic clock, which have an accuracy and precision of 10^-9 seconds, are synchronized. One is placed on a commercial airliner at Dulles Airport, near Washington DC, USA, which flies to Heathrow Airport near London, UK at its normal cruising speed of 250 m/s, a 5900 km flight which takes about 23600 seconds. The plane then returns to Dulles, where the 2 clocks are resynchonized, detecting any discrepancy in the times they keep.

 

According to Special Relativity, the clock on the plane will be slow relative to the one on the ground by 16 nanoseconds (1.6*10^8 s), well within their accuracy and precision.

 

Do you believe:

1) that the 2 clocks will disagree as predicted

2) that the 2 clocks will disagree, but by more than predicted

3) that the 2 clocks will disagree, but by less than predicted

4) that the 2 clocks will not disagree significantly

 

If you believe that the clocks will disagree, do you believe:

a) that the disagreement is the result of the effect described by Special Relativity

:hihi: that it is due to a different effect, for which you have an explanation (even a very tentative one)

c) that it is due to a different effect, for which you have no explanation

 

Note that I’m not asking if you believe that all of the Theory of Special Relativity, or if it’s underlying math, is correct, only if the specific prediction it makes about this experiment is.

[xersan]

Xersan, in order for me (and others at scienceforums) to better understand your beliefs about physical reality as it relates to the Theory of Special Relativity, please consider the following experiment, and answer the few questions that follow.

 

2 atomic clock, which have an accuracy and precision of 10^-9 seconds, are synchronized. One is placed on a commercial airliner at Dulles Airport, near Washington DC, USA, which flies to Heathrow Airport near London, UK at its normal cruising speed of 250 m/s, a 5900 km flight which takes about 23600 seconds. The plane then returns to Dulles, where the 2 clocks are resynchonized, detecting any discrepancy in the times they keep.

 

According to Special Relativity, the clock on the plane will be slow relative to the one on the ground by 16 nanoseconds (1.6*10^8 s), well within their accuracy and precision.

 

Do you believe:

1) that the 2 clocks will disagree as predicted

2) that the 2 clocks will disagree, but by more than predicted

3) that the 2 clocks will disagree, but by less than predicted

4) that the 2 clocks will not disagree significantly

 

If you believe that the clocks will disagree, do you believe:

a) that the disagreement is the result of the effect described by Special Relativity

:hihi: that it is due to a different effect, for which you have an explanation (even a very tentative one)

c) that it is due to a different effect, for which you have no explanation

 

Note that I’m not asking if you believe that all of the Theory of Special Relativity, or if it’s underlying math, is correct, only if the specific prediction it makes about this experiment is.

 

My answer I:

 

I know certainly that “ 4- the 2 clocks will not disagree significantly”. The wording “believing” is used for unknown subjects.

 

I studied deeply about SR and I had written a book in 2003 (All prints of it was sold due to WYP2005) I want to submit for you briefly.

 

The theory of SR says that: It must be 23580 flysecond to keep the fixed value of “c”, while the clock (on the earth) shows 23600 earthsecond; this result is the claim of the theory:

 

t’ = t (1 – v/c) / sqrt(1 – v2/c2) = 23580.34154 flysecond

 

The period of 23600 second the world is identical with 23580 flysecond according to the clock in the airplane.

 

But I never accept this 20 seconds. In my opinion the pilot sees the 23600 earthsecond on his time counter when it arrived to London. And when it returned to Dulles, he will see again 23600 earthsecond on the clock in the airplane.

 

If pilot uses the lightclock he can see different time at his clock:

 

If the mirrors of lıght clock are parallel to axis of plane counter show that : 23599.99181

 

If the mırrors of light clock are perpendicular to axis of plane ıt show that : 235899.98361

 

I will work to appear the inappropriateness of SR at <One Step Beyond (9)>

 

Bıtte wait myanswer II

[xersan]

ONE STEP BEYOND (9)

 

The Theory of Special Relativity is known that it is difficult for understanding/perceiving. It seems complex. Even a competition was organized for perfect explaining.

 

But the fiction of the theory is very simple. If you wish, you can perceive by a little effort.

 

At the moment of To = 0 second: * flashlight

 

*…………………………… :hihi: .....

oo………….oo…..oo…………oo The source flashed at the moment of To.

 

 

At the moment of T1 = 5 second.

 

+…………………………x = c.t …………………………..…..+

 

………………………………………..+………….x’…………....+

 

………………………………………..*…………………………* :hihi: ……

….........................................oo…………oo...oo………..oo

 

So…………………………………..S1…...…….…….……….O1

+……………...v.t………………….+…….x-vt……….…..….+

 

1- The observer in the train never feels the motion of train like that we can’t fell the motion of the world. (The speed of train v = 0.60 c)

2- He want to measure the velocity of the light.

3- He has measured the velocity and determined 300 000 km/sec by well-known mechanism.

4- The flashlight has perceived by a receptor at the moment of T1 . (t = T1 – To = 5 sec)

5- He measures the length of the way that the flashlight traveled. The result is S1O1= 600 000 km. He supposes so.

6- He knows that it must be S1O1 / t = c but S1O1 / t = 600 000 / 5 = 120 000 km/s (*)

7- And he was amazed. How is it become? He can’t solve it. He needs new ideas.

8- He learns that everything has a motion in universe. Already there is a problem of space-time. Probably the train has a motion and speed. May the result (*) become because of the speed of train? He thinks that the units can be differing. If the time become slower the result of ratio approach to the value < c >. Even if the time tempo become slower two times c will be 240 000 km/s. The trials are not enough, because also the length dimension must be considered. Fitzgerald has claimed the length contraction.

9- At last he learns Lorentz’s equations. The units of parameters are moderated by the term sqrt(1 – v2/c2) in Lorentz’s transformations. Because of measuring the value of < c > in the train it must be the ratio S1O1 / t = c . And he declares the theory of SR.

10- Everything is shown consistency. The reason of space-time is the relative speeds. And the conclusions of theory are liked by everybody. Time odyssey is very interesting/ amazing .

 

But: 1- The light had traveled between the points So and O1during the time <t> by the fixed velocity of light. This explaining is an authentic reality. And the measurement mechanisms measure always the velocity at the meaning of this setting. He had neglected another/alternative possible explaining for determining the value of c by measurement in the train. And the others had neglected too for 100 years. It is possible an alternative explaining: All known measurement systems always measure the velocity of light according to its own (Not according to its source).

 

2- If Einstein had known this explaining he would not submitted his theory.

 

2- The reason of space-time is the limited and fixed velocity of light. This reason is enough to explain the traps of logic.

 

This explaining is expressed with different and detailed examples in my book. And The paradigm of light kinematics has reset.

[xersan]

CraigD

 

My answer II

 

Just I must make a correction. Because the light clock performs by the resultant velocity of general motion, according to my new paradigm for light kinematics. The speed of relative object < v > in the formulas must be taken this resultant value. Basically the speed in the theory of SR must be the resultant value. The value of speed is wrong from the first reference system. The plane’s speed (250 km/s) may be not considered. And we never know this resultant velocity and we never predict the deformation of time. Also lightclock can’t attend us.

[allguitarsforme]

Hello,

I'm sorrym, I don't understand where you got your Lorentz transformation equation from.

The standard for is

t' = gamma*(t-v*x/c^2) = (t-v*x/c^2)/ sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

where the prime (') mean the observed times/lengths in the moving reference frame.

 

Remember that moving clocks run slow ( rest frame says an hour, the train says 30 min) and lengths contract as you correctly stated.

 

Using this Lorentz equation we obtain:

The unit of length in train = trainmeter ( = 0.80 railmeter ; for v = 0.60 c )

The unit of time in train = trainsecond (= 0.8 railsecond; for v = 0.60 c)

 

The unit of length on perron = railmeter ( = 1.25 trainmeter; for v = 0.60 c)

The unit of time on perron = railsecond ( = 1.25 trainsecond ; for v = 0.60 c)

(Note a perfect symmetry)

 

If t= 5

t'= 4 railseconds = 5 trainseconds

l'= 0.8railmeter = 1 trainmeter

 

Ok now that it seems to make more sense let's try the velocity of light inconsistency thing again. You calculated:

c = 300 000 trainkm / trainsecond, good.

Now to transform this to the other reference frame (rest frame) we must use Einsteins additions of velocity rule

 

v = (v' + u) / (1 + v'*u/c)

= (0.6c + c) / ( 1+ 0.6c*c/c)

=(0.6c+c)/ (0.6c +c) / c

=c

Where u= observed speed of train from rest frame (aka railmeters/railseconds)

v'= speed measured in moving frame (from moving frame (aka trainmeter/trainseconds))

v= speed measured from rest frame (aka railmeters/railseconds)

 

 

Before reply to this arguing that the units are not correct, and that the velocity rule is wrong, try reading Resnick's "Introduction to Special Relativity" It derives these formulas and how to use them. I can assure you I used it correctly, and the source of disagreement is probably in the variables. This is how we use the variables, and how we carry out the calculations. No inconsistancies.

Remember Maxwell's equations predicted a constant speed of light c, this lead to an inconsistency with classical Galilean mechanics, so Lorentz formulated these equations to make sure c is the same in ANY reference frame. It's impossible to find a different c because its the FOUNDATION of the equations your using!! It like trying to disprove subtraction using addition.

 

Thank you for your time, and interesting theory!