Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #604035 > unrolled thread

Contradiction or my math/physics error?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Contradiction or my math/physics error? "sepp623@yahoo.com" <sepp623@yahoo.com> - 2023-03-14 15:15 -0700
    Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-03-14 18:08 -0700
      Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? "sepp623@yahoo.com" <sepp623@yahoo.com> - 2023-03-16 08:05 -0700
        Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-16 12:03 -0700
          Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-16 13:03 -0700
            Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-03-28 20:04 +1100
              Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-13 03:46 -0700
                Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-04-13 12:50 +0200
                  Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-04-13 10:15 -0700
                Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-04-13 12:50 +0200
                  Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-13 04:11 -0700
                    Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-04-13 06:20 -0700
                      Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-04-13 10:20 -0700
                        Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-04-13 11:37 -0700
                      Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-04-15 14:52 -0500
                    Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-04-13 06:28 -0700
                    Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-04-15 14:35 -0500
                Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-03 08:46 +0000
                  Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-03 02:16 -0700
                  Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-03 09:25 -0500
            Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-28 10:34 -0700
              Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-28 10:36 -0700
          Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-03-28 20:02 +1100
            Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-04-13 10:31 -0700
          Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-28 10:32 -0700
      Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2023-03-28 01:57 +0200
        Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-03-27 17:23 -0700
          Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2023-04-12 21:29 +0200
            Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-04-12 22:28 -0700
    Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-03-28 12:00 +1100
    Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-27 20:22 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#605495

On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 1:03:30 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 12:03:32 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 8:05:22 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote: 
> > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 8:08:58 PM UTC-5, Trevor Lange wrote: 
> > > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 3:15:14 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote: 
> > > > > Please explain the error. 
> > > > 
> > > > The numerous errors (plural) in your "reasoning" were fully explained to you previously. 
> > > > 
> > > > Again, use units with c=1, and let v be the speed of S1 in terms of S0, and let V denote the initial speeds of the objects in the negative x direction when they respectively begin accelerating, and put the origin at the initial acceleration event of the object at lower x, so its equation of motion is x = -Vt + (1/2)at^2. Let x0,t0 denote the initial acceleration event of the object at higher x, which was at x=L at t=0, and begins accelerating simultaneously with the other object in terms of S1, its equation of motion is (x-x0) = -V(t-t0) + (1/2)a(t-t0)^2. Of course we have x0=L/(1+vV) and t0=vL/(1+vV). There is obviously no contradiction here, and your confusion isn't due to special relativity, because you can simply stipulate x0,t0 and this is a purely Galilean calculation. 
> > > Thanks, I see that I didn't include the one second distance change in the separation. 
> > > David Seppala 
> > > Bastrop TX 
> > Two clocks each going slower than the other is the Twin paradox contradiction... 
> > where contradictions exist their theory is proved not real. 
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> I agree that the theory of relativity is disproven by showing the flaws in logic 

Relativity does not have any flaws in logic. Stop fantasising. Had it been that
simple, relativity would have been disposed of 100+ years ago.

> Dingle disproved special relativity by asking, "which clock time dilates?" Relativity is not paradoxical. It is self-contradictory nonsense.

No, sorry. Here is a simple fact regarding life in general: it is not true in
all cases that whatever you don't understand is necessarily incorrect.

Dingle was simply wrong. It happens.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605496

On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 19:34:48 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 1:03:30 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 12:03:32 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > > On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 8:05:22 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote: 
> > > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 8:08:58 PM UTC-5, Trevor Lange wrote: 
> > > > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 3:15:14 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote: 
> > > > > > Please explain the error. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The numerous errors (plural) in your "reasoning" were fully explained to you previously. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Again, use units with c=1, and let v be the speed of S1 in terms of S0, and let V denote the initial speeds of the objects in the negative x direction when they respectively begin accelerating, and put the origin at the initial acceleration event of the object at lower x, so its equation of motion is x = -Vt + (1/2)at^2. Let x0,t0 denote the initial acceleration event of the object at higher x, which was at x=L at t=0, and begins accelerating simultaneously with the other object in terms of S1, its equation of motion is (x-x0) = -V(t-t0) + (1/2)a(t-t0)^2. Of course we have x0=L/(1+vV) and t0=vL/(1+vV). There is obviously no contradiction here, and your confusion isn't due to special relativity, because you can simply stipulate x0,t0 and this is a purely Galilean calculation. 
> > > > Thanks, I see that I didn't include the one second distance change in the separation. 
> > > > David Seppala 
> > > > Bastrop TX 
> > > Two clocks each going slower than the other is the Twin paradox contradiction... 
> > > where contradictions exist their theory is proved not real. 
> > > 
> > > Mitchell Raemsch 
> > 
> > I agree that the theory of relativity is disproven by showing the flaws in logic
> Relativity does not have any flaws in logic. Stop fantasising.

Yes, it has. It has been proven here many times,
and you can only pretend you don't see, samely as
your fellow idiots.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605479

On 17-Mar-23 6:03 am, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 8:05:22 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 8:08:58 PM UTC-5, Trevor Lange wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 3:15:14 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> Please explain the error.
>>>
>>> The numerous errors (plural) in your "reasoning" were fully explained to you previously.
>>>
>>> Again, use units with c=1, and let v be the speed of S1 in terms of S0, and let V denote the initial speeds of the objects in the negative x direction when they respectively begin accelerating, and put the origin at the initial acceleration event of the object at lower x, so its equation of motion is x = -Vt + (1/2)at^2. Let x0,t0 denote the initial acceleration event of the object at higher x, which was at x=L at t=0, and begins accelerating simultaneously with the other object in terms of S1, its equation of motion is (x-x0) = -V(t-t0) + (1/2)a(t-t0)^2. Of course we have x0=L/(1+vV) and t0=vL/(1+vV). There is obviously no contradiction here, and your confusion isn't due to special relativity, because you can simply stipulate x0,t0 and this is a purely Galilean calculation.
>> Thanks, I see that I didn't include the one second distance change in the separation.
>> David Seppala
>> Bastrop TX
> 
> Two clocks each going slower than the other is the Twin paradox contradiction...
> where contradictions exist their theory is proved not real.
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch

Of course, you ignore the repeated explanations of why that is not what 
special relativity says.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607102

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 2:02:45 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 17-Mar-23 6:03 am, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 8:05:22 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote: 
> >> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 8:08:58 PM UTC-5, Trevor Lange wrote: 
> >>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 3:15:14 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote: 
> >>>> Please explain the error. 
> >>> 
> >>> The numerous errors (plural) in your "reasoning" were fully explained to you previously. 
> >>> 
> >>> Again, use units with c=1, and let v be the speed of S1 in terms of S0, and let V denote the initial speeds of the objects in the negative x direction when they respectively begin accelerating, and put the origin at the initial acceleration event of the object at lower x, so its equation of motion is x = -Vt + (1/2)at^2. Let x0,t0 denote the initial acceleration event of the object at higher x, which was at x=L at t=0, and begins accelerating simultaneously with the other object in terms of S1, its equation of motion is (x-x0) = -V(t-t0) + (1/2)a(t-t0)^2. Of course we have x0=L/(1+vV) and t0=vL/(1+vV). There is obviously no contradiction here, and your confusion isn't due to special relativity, because you can simply stipulate x0,t0 and this is a purely Galilean calculation. 
> >> Thanks, I see that I didn't include the one second distance change in the separation. 
> >> David Seppala 
> >> Bastrop TX 
> > 
> > Two clocks each going slower than the other is the Twin paradox contradiction... 
> > where contradictions exist their theory is proved not real. 
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> Of course, you ignore the repeated explanations of why that is not what 
> special relativity says. 

It has been part of relativity since the beginning sylvia.
And it is a contradiction.
You might want to leave it out but it has already
been there historically. 

Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605494

On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 12:03:32 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 8:05:22 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 8:08:58 PM UTC-5, Trevor Lange wrote: 
> > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 3:15:14 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote: 
> > > > Please explain the error. 
> > > 
> > > The numerous errors (plural) in your "reasoning" were fully explained to you previously. 
> > > 
> > > Again, use units with c=1, and let v be the speed of S1 in terms of S0, and let V denote the initial speeds of the objects in the negative x direction when they respectively begin accelerating, and put the origin at the initial acceleration event of the object at lower x, so its equation of motion is x = -Vt + (1/2)at^2. Let x0,t0 denote the initial acceleration event of the object at higher x, which was at x=L at t=0, and begins accelerating simultaneously with the other object in terms of S1, its equation of motion is (x-x0) = -V(t-t0) + (1/2)a(t-t0)^2. Of course we have x0=L/(1+vV) and t0=vL/(1+vV). There is obviously no contradiction here, and your confusion isn't due to special relativity, because you can simply stipulate x0,t0 and this is a purely Galilean calculation. 
> > Thanks, I see that I didn't include the one second distance change in the separation. 
> > David Seppala 
> > Bastrop TX
> 
> Two clocks each going slower than the other is the Twin paradox contradiction... 

That's not what relativity says. You just make up lies.

> where contradictions exist their theory is proved not real. 

N/A

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605461

Trevor Lange wrote:

> Again, use units with c=1, and let v be the speed of S1 in terms of S0,
> and let V denote the initial speeds of the objects in the negative x
> direction when they respectively begin accelerating, and put the origin at
> the initial acceleration event of the object at lower x, so its equation
> of motion is x = -Vt + (1/2)at^2.

This is NOT a correct equation of motion in special-relativistic mechanics 
because given a constant force, the acceleration cannot remain constant.  
(if it would, the relative speed could exceed c):

  F = dp/dt = d/dt (γ m v) = m (dγ/dt v + γ dv/dt) = m (γ³ v²/c² + γ) a

⇔ a = F/[m (γ³ v²/c² + γ)] ≠ const. if F = const. as v is increasing. ∎

Forget about accelerations until you are able to handle them¹, and simply 
assume perpetual uniform motion at v⃗ that is just considered from t = 0.
After all, motion at constant (relative) velocity/speed is what “*inertial* 
reference frame” means.


PointedEars
___________
¹ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_(special_relativity)>
-- 
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?  
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
   I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605462

On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 4:57:18 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Again, use units with c=1, and let v be the speed of S1 in terms of S0, 
> > and let V denote the initial speeds of the objects in the negative x 
> > direction when they respectively begin accelerating, and put the origin at 
> > the initial acceleration event of the object at lower x, so its equation 
> > of motion is x = -Vt + (1/2)at^2.
>
> This is NOT a correct equation of motion in special-relativistic mechanics 
> because given a constant force, the acceleration cannot remain constant. 

You are mistaken, because the OP specifically stipulated constant *coordinate* acceleration, not constant proper acceleration, so the above formula is exactly correct.  Indeed this was the answer to his question:  The specified loci do eventualy intersect, but only after at least one of them exceeds the speed of light.  Obviously the force required to maintain constant coordinate acceleration goes to infinity as the speed approach c.  The original poster mistakenly thought the loci would intersect prior to reaching the speed of light, because he mis-calculated the point at which the right-hand object begins to accelerate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#606977

Trevor Lange wrote:

> On Monday, March 27, 2023 at 4:57:18 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> wrote:
>> > Again, use units with c=1, and let v be the speed of S1 in terms of S0,
>> > and let V denote the initial speeds of the objects in the negative x
>> > direction when they respectively begin accelerating, and put the origin
>> > at the initial acceleration event of the object at lower x, so its
>> > equation of motion is x = -Vt + (1/2)at^2.
>>
>> This is NOT a correct equation of motion in special-relativistic
>> mechanics because given a constant force, the acceleration cannot remain
>> constant.
> 
> You are mistaken, because the OP specifically stipulated constant
> *coordinate* acceleration, not constant proper acceleration,

I *was* *obviously* discussing only the coordinate acceleration.

> so the above formula is exactly correct.

You are confusing theories, and concepts.

I have shown that the premise of the OP is, and the formula given by you 
describes, a physical *impossibility* (regardless of whether the force is 
constant): a continuously applied, non-zero 3-force will NOT result in a 
constant coordinate (3-)acceleration.

Because if it were different, then the relative speed could in some inertial 
frame of reference reach and even exceed c.

> Indeed this was the answer to his question:  The specified loci do
> eventualy intersect, but only after at least one of them exceeds the speed 
> of light.

So this does not happen.


PointedEars
-- 
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
 testing your knowledge means everything.”
   —Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
    in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607043

On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 12:29:51 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> > Again, use units with c=1, and let v be the speed of S1 in terms of S0, 
> >> > and let V denote the initial speeds of the objects in the negative x 
> >> > direction when they respectively begin accelerating, and put the origin 
> >> > at the initial acceleration event of the object at lower x, so its 
> >> > equation of motion is x = -Vt + (1/2)at^2. 
> >> 
> >> This is NOT a correct equation of motion in special-relativistic 
> >> mechanics because given a constant force, the acceleration cannot remain 
> >> constant. 
> > 
> > You are mistaken, because the OP specifically stipulated constant 
> > *coordinate* acceleration, not constant proper acceleration,
>
> I *was* *obviously* discussing only the coordinate acceleration.

No, you were discussing constant proper acceleration, which is shown by the fact that you stated that it was produced by the application of a constant force.  A constant force (loproduces constant proper acceleration.  To achieve constant coordinate acceleration (which was the subject of the OP), the applied force must increase continually.

> > so the above formula is exactly correct.
>
> You are...

Again, the above formula and the diagnosis of the OP's mistake were both entirely correct.  He mis-calculated the initial position of the right hand object, leading him to mistakenly think the trajectories intersected by the time they reached 0.95 c, which was not correct.  I explained in this and (in more detail) a previous thread that the loci of constant coordinate acceleration would not intersect until at least one of them exceed the speed of light.

> I have shown...

You have shown that you completely misunderstood both the OP and the correct response to him, and everything you've said in this thread is erroneous as a result.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605464

On 15-Mar-23 9:15 am, sepp623@yahoo.com wrote:
> Can anyone point out my physics or math error? I get contradictory results in this simple relativity scenario.
> 

That's because you continue to make the same stupid mistakes, but hide 
them inside convoluted scenarios. Why would people want to waste their 
time on you?

Stop using time dilation and length contraction. They are popular 
science special case misrepresentation of relativity, and inevitable 
lead you astray.

As I've suggested before - use the Lorentz transform.

Sylvia

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605468

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 3:15:14 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Can anyone point out my physics or math error? I get contradictory results in this simple relativity scenario. 
> 
> There are two inertial reference frames F0 and F1 with relative velocity |V| = c*sqrt(3)/2 along the x-axis. Two points at x=A and x=B are a distance L = 2/3*sqrt(3) light-seconds apart as measured in F0. Observers in F0 observe an event at A one second earlier than an event at B. Using the Lorentz transform: 
> t' = gamma *(t-V*L/c**2) 
> t' = 2*(1 second - (c*sqrt(3)/2 * 2/3 * sqrt(3)/c**2)) 
> Therefore t' = 0 so these events that are one second apart in F0 are simultaneous events in F1 
> 
> There is an inertial reference frame F0. There are two identical objects in that frame that accelerate at a constant rate of 3 meters per second squared as measured in F0 as long as their velocity is less than 0.95*c relative to F0. Now using c = 3*10**8 meters/second and expressing the distance L above in meters, L = 2/3*sqrt(3) * 3*10**8) gives 
> L = 346,410,161.5 meters 
> If the two objects start with a velocity -0.95c relative to F0 and accelerate at a constant rate of 3 meters/second until they reach a velocity of 0.95 relative to F0, those two objects can accelerate for 1.9 * 10**8 seconds without exceeding the speed of light. If these two objects start their accelerations 1 second apart as observed in F0, then one object starts approaching the other object. 
> Using the standard formula for distance traveled by a constant accelerating object we have: 
> d = 1/2*a*t**2 
> So the separation if these two objects start accelerating 1 second apart and they each had an initial velocity of |V| = 0.95 c with respect to F0, the distance between the two objects during this journey decreases by 
> 1/2*a*t**2 - (1/2*a*(t-1)*(t-1)) = 1/2*a*(2*t -1) 
> For a = 3 meters/second squared we get 
> distance between the two objects decreases by 3*(t-1/2). So if t = 1.9*10**8 seconds, 
> distance between the two objects decreases by 569,999,998.5 meters. 
> Since the distance between the two objects was originally L = 346,410,161.5 meters, the two objects will crash into each other if they travel along the same line, or if they are on lines parallel to the x-axis, one object will pass the other during this acceleration. 
> In frame F1, both objects start their identical accelerations simultaneously so the distance between the two objects never changes. Please explain the error. 
> Thanks, 
> David Seppala 
> Bastrop TX

Don't you ever get tired of doing the same thing over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over?

You've been posting identically-sounding scenarios for more than a decade here now IIRC.
Just learn the Lorentz geometry and be done with it already. Move on. Sheesh.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web