Most Successfull Illusion : Theory of SR

[xersan]

Most successful illusion: Theory of SR

 

The special theory of relativity has a very special place for history of mind. Because it has paradoxes; but, these paradoxes are accepted willingly. Paradoxes give a signal of failure. But mystic, fantastic conclusions of SR attend to our semantic necessity. And it has become philosophic idol. Brains have acquired blinkers. Even some simple wrongs cannot be perceived. For example:

 

In the formula of time dilation:

 

t’ = t / sqrt (1 – v2/c2)

 

The denominator is always small than 1. And t’ > t :lol:

 

In this case does the tempo of time become faster? :)

 

Does it require t’< t for time dilation ?

[Erasmus00]

In the formula of time dilation:

 

t’ = t / sqrt (1 – v2/c2)

 

The denominator is always small than 1. And t’ > t :lol:

 

In this case does the tempo of time become faster? :)

 

Does it require t’< t for time dilation ?

 

t' is the proper time. Its the time the clock reads according to the observer moving in that frame. The proper time is bigger then the observed time t. This is what time dilation means. It only looks like a paradox because you're confusing the variables.

-Will

[xersan]

t' is the proper time. Its the time the clock reads according to the observer moving in that frame. The proper time is bigger then the observed time t. This is what time dilation means. It only looks like a paradox because you're confusing the variables.

-Will

If we consider a numerical example for v = 0.60 c and t = 10 sec:=====> t’ = 5 sec.

 

An observer in relative system reads the time 5 second when the observer on the reference system is reading the time 10 second from his own clock.

 

We can calculate the proper time for this numerical example:

 

The view of the relative clock comes to the reference observer for the time of (v.t/c)

 

t + vt/c = 10 sec =====> 1.60 t = 10 sec ===> t = 6.6666 sec

 

for the value of t = 6.6666 sec t’ = 3.333333 sec ===> Proper time is 3.3333 sec.

 

The reference observer reads 3.3333 second on the clock of relative system at the time of 10 referencesecond

 

Also proper time is always small than the time of reference system.

 

t’ must not be higher than t for time dilation.

 

You may say that 5 sec > 3.3333 sec. Yes, of course you are right. But you can perceive that it means, at the time of 5 relative second the reference observer can determine this time 3.3333 second.

 

I want to say If the familiar formula of tıme dilation is : t' = t / sqrt(1 - v2/c2)

 

This formula can not your result of time dilation

 

===> t' = 10 / 0.80 = 12.50 second ???????

[Qfwfq]

t' is the proper time.

No, t is. Any observer not at rest will see time intervals longer than proper time.

 

Still, as usual, I don't see Xersan's point at all.

[Qfwfq]

If we consider a numerical example for v = 0.60 c and t = 10 sec:=====> t’ = 5 sec.

No, t' = 12.5 s.

[xersan]

No, t' = 12.5 s.

 

The formulas of SR don't give the value of proper time. t or t' are not proper time.

 

I want to say just the same thing with you. If the t' is 12.5 second, what is the value of t' = 5 sec obtained by Lorent'z equation?

[xersan]

We can think that: What time is it in reference system when it was observed the time of t’= 5 relativesecond ?

 

v.t = 0.60 . c .10 = 6. c

 

T = The duration of returning of the view of 5 relativesecond = vt/c = 6.c / c = 6 sec.

 

The time of observation for t’ = 5 sec is 16 reference second.

 

The reference observer reads 5 second on the relative clock at the time of his 16 referencesecodç

[Qfwfq]

what is the value of t' = 5 sec obtained by Lorent'z equation?

:lol: With what equation?

[xersan]

Lorentz's equations: (From Einstein's book : Relativity, The Special and The General Theory 1916

 

x' = (x - vt) / sqrt(1 - v2/c2) ; y' = y ; z' = z

 

t' = (t - vx/c2) / sqrt(1 - v2/c2)

 

x = c.t ===> t' = (1 - v/c) t / sqrt(1 - v2/c2) (*)

 

Our numerical example : t' = (1 - 0.60) 10 / O.80 = 5 sec.

 

But Einstein had given also different formula for the < t' > : t' = t / sqrt(1 - v2/c2) (**)in his book (at the and of section 12). It ıs interesting, because he had calculated the value of unit < t > for the < t' = 1> . In my opinion he had been aware of dissimilar formulas and he had found resource to cache this point. Or an effort for compromising without close attention.

 

(*) This is genuine formula of theoryfor time dilation

 

(**) This is derived for perpendicular direction of lightclock.

 

Please analyse. Incredible.

[Qfwfq]

x' = (x - vt) / sqrt(1 - v2/c2) ; y' = y ; z' = z

 

t' = (t - vx/c2) / sqrt(1 - v2/c2)

This is the coordinate transformation, a so-called Lorentz boost, for motion along the x axis at velocity v. You seem to be misapplying it, replacing an x with a t, apart from the fact that that isn't how the ratio between proper time and another observer's time is worked out. The appropriate way is:

 

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

 

Because each observer's time interval is the projection onto their time axis.

[xersan]

What is the proper time ? I want to learn how you understood.

[xersan]

MOST SUCCESSFUL ILLUSION : The Theory of SR (2)

 

An illusionist stages his tricks in the presence of audience. And he hopes applause. The fantastic conclusions of theory were not displayed. Length contraction has never perceived by anybody. Time dilation has never realized by anybody. Time voyage is never realized without films. The theory has paradoxes. But Einstein is sanctified for 100 years. Here is most successful illusion.

[xersan]

This is the coordinate transformation, a so-called Lorentz boost, for motion along the x axis at velocity v. You seem to be misapplying it, replacing an x with a t, apart from the fact that that isn't how the ratio between proper time and another observer's time is worked out. The appropriate way is:

 

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

 

Because each observer's time interval is the projection onto their time axis.

 

. Quote:

Originally Posted by xersan

x' = (x - vt) / sqrt(1 - v2/c2) ; y' = y ; z' = z

 

t' = (t - vx/c2) / sqrt(1 - v2/c2)

 

 

If we agree that these equations "Lorentz boostç

 

We try to analyze the opposite light by principles of the theory of SR:

(Numerical example for v = 0.60 c ; t = 5 sec)

 

A- The source and the light travel to direction of + x

 

Results : x’ = 750 000 km ; t’ = 2.5 sec (Tempo of time becomes slower)

 

B- The source goes to + x, light travel to (-) x

 

Results: x’ = - 3 000 000 km ; t’ = 10 sec (Tempo of time become FASTER)

 

When the positions of A and B are set up together simultaneously (It is possible naturally; for example a spherical source is in the middle of a train or a shuttle. This experiment requires that two different tempos must be observed on the same relative vehicle. But it is impossible simultaneously.

[Qfwfq]

What is the proper time ? Please explain for me.

Before making claims about a well confirmed theory being wrong, learn it properly and understand it.

[xersan]

Thanks for your high polite. I know the proper time. I had wanted to learn what you understood

[xersan]

. Quote:

Originally Posted by xersan

x' = (x - vt) / sqrt(1 - v2/c2) ; y' = y ; z' = z

 

t' = (t - vx/c2) / sqrt(1 - v2/c2)

 

 

If we agree that these equations "Lorentz boostç

 

We try to analyze the opposite light by principles of the theory of SR:

(Numerical example for v = 0.60 c ; t = 5 sec)

 

A- The source and the light travel to direction of + x

 

Results : x’ = 750 000 km ; t’ = 2.5 sec (Tempo of time becomes slower)

 

B- The source goes to + x, light travel to (-) x

 

Results: x’ = - 3 000 000 km ; t’ = 10 sec (Tempo of time become FASTER)

 

When the positions of A and B are set up together simultaneously (It is possible naturally; for example a spherical source is in the middle of a train or a shuttle. This experiment requires that two different tempos must be observed on the same relative vehicle. But it is impossible simultaneously.

 

 

I am a member of some forum cites. But I didn’t see a militant scientist since today.

 

I wish to discuss the theory of SR with persons whose have neutral vision instead of fanatics. Most are content with shallow reading. Somebody needs to believe and they prefer believing instead of analyzing by their minds.

 

I want to display the wrongs of the theory. But unfortunately the technical discussion may be transformed to a demagogy.

 

Can we discuss this theory in the year of WYP 2005 seriously and deeply?

 

Displaying some wrongs is a chance for future.

[Qfwfq]

I have often helped people on these boards that ask questions because they are here to learn, without trying to assert that current physics is wrong before having understood it.

 

Anyway, proper time is the time coordinate in the object's rest frame, that in which the object is at rest.