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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #433676 > unrolled thread

Clarification Needed Please.

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

Contents

  Clarification Needed Please. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 10:21 +1000
    Re: Clarification Needed Please. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-24 17:30 -0700
      Re: Clarification Needed Please. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-24 17:53 -0700
        Re: Clarification Needed Please. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-24 18:03 -0700
          Re: Clarification Needed Please. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-24 18:06 -0700
            Re: Clarification Needed Please. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-24 18:12 -0700
    Re: Clarification Needed Please. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-09-25 11:20 +1000
      Re: Clarification Needed Please. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-25 15:42 +1000
        Re: Clarification Needed Please. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-09-25 20:19 +1000
        Re: Clarification Needed Please. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-25 13:28 +0200
          Re: Clarification Needed Please. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-09-25 21:29 +1000
            Re: Clarification Needed Please. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-25 15:00 +0200
              Re: Clarification Needed Please. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-26 03:55 +1000
              Re: Clarification Needed Please. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-25 22:43 +0200
            Re: Clarification Needed Please. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-09-27 19:45 -0500
              Re: Clarification Needed Please. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-09-28 13:00 +1000
                Re: Clarification Needed Please. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-10-15 10:54 -0500
          Re: Clarification Needed Please. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-26 03:53 +1000
            Re: Clarification Needed Please. Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-25 17:55 +0000
            Re: Clarification Needed Please. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-25 22:40 +0200
              Re: Clarification Needed Please. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-25 22:43 +0200
              Re: Clarification Needed Please. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-26 11:42 +1000
                Re: Clarification Needed Please. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-26 04:37 -0700
                Re: Clarification Needed Please. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-26 14:45 +0200
                  Re: Clarification Needed Please. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-27 08:16 +1000
                    Re: Clarification Needed Please. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 00:27 +0200
                      Re: Clarification Needed Please. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 00:32 +0200
                        Re: Clarification Needed Please. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-27 08:45 +1000
                          Re: Clarification Needed Please. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 00:53 +0200
                            Re: Clarification Needed Please. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-27 10:51 +1000
                              Re: Clarification Needed Please. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 11:55 +0200
                      Re: Clarification Needed Please. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-27 14:59 +0200
                        Re: Clarification Needed Please. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 09:27 +0200
                    Re: Clarification Needed Please. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-27 19:06 +0200
                      Re: Clarification Needed Please. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-28 08:47 +1000
                        Re: Clarification Needed Please. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-28 03:30 +0200
                        Re: Clarification Needed Please. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-28 15:00 +0200
                  Re: Clarification Needed Please. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-27 14:56 +0200
    Re: Clarification Needed Please. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-25 12:38 +0200
      Re: Clarification Needed Please. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-09-26 03:58 +1000
      Re: Clarification Needed Please. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-26 16:42 +0200
        Re: Clarification Needed Please. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-09-26 16:56 +0200
        Re: Clarification Needed Please. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-26 20:17 +0200
          Re: Clarification Needed Please. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-09-26 20:45 +0200
            Re: Clarification Needed Please. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-26 22:04 +0200
              Re: Clarification Needed Please. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-09-26 22:36 +0200
                Re: Clarification Needed Please. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-27 08:30 +1000
                  Re: Clarification Needed Please. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 00:50 +0200
                    Re: Clarification Needed Please. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-27 10:55 +1000
                      Re: Clarification Needed Please. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 03:16 +0200
                        Re: Clarification Needed Please. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-27 19:47 +1000
                          Re: Clarification Needed Please. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 09:30 +0200
          Re: Clarification Needed Please. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-26 23:54 +0200
            Re: Clarification Needed Please. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-27 08:33 +1000
              Re: Clarification Needed Please. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 01:00 +0200
                Re: Clarification Needed Please. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-27 11:01 +1000
                  Re: Clarification Needed Please. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 03:19 +0200
                    Re: Clarification Needed Please. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-27 19:53 +1000
                      Re: Clarification Needed Please. Gerard Hermes <aluua@nwaau.fb> - 2017-09-27 10:39 +0000
                      Re: Clarification Needed Please. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-27 09:46 +0200
                        Re: Clarification Needed Please. HGW <HW@home.net> - 2017-09-28 09:09 +1000
                          Re: Clarification Needed Please. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-09-28 02:48 +0200

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#433676 — Clarification Needed Please.

This diagram http://www.scisite.info/event.jpeg, is an X-T graph of a light source which emits an instantaneous flash of 
light at a certain location and time in a particular reference frame. It also shows a transform of that graph  into 
Frame 2, which is moving at v relative to Frame 1.
Normally, one would expect the slope of the worldline of the flash to be c in frame one and c-v in Frame 2. However SR 
claims that opposite fractional changes in the coordinates of both axes bring that latter slope back to c.

If that is accepted, what speed would an observer at rest in frame 2 now assign to frame 1 or the light source? It would 
appear that whilst Frame 2 is moving at v relative to frame 1, frame 1 is NOT moving at v relative to Frame 2.

Would a dingleberry expert please explain how their theory accounts for this seemingly ridiculous situation.
-- 

    HGW

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#433678

On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 7:21:07 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote:
> This diagram http://www.scisite.info/event.jpeg, is an X-T graph of a light source which emits an instantaneous flash of 
> light at a certain location and time in a particular reference frame. It also shows a transform of that graph  into 
> Frame 2, which is moving at v relative to Frame 1.
> Normally, one would expect the slope of the worldline of the flash to be c in frame one and c-v in Frame 2. However SR 
> claims that opposite fractional changes in the coordinates of both axes bring that latter slope back to c.
> 
> If that is accepted, what speed would an observer at rest in frame 2 now assign to frame 1 or the light source? It would 
> appear that whilst Frame 2 is moving at v relative to frame 1, frame 1 is NOT moving at v relative to Frame 2.
> 
> Would a dingleberry expert please explain how their theory accounts for this seemingly ridiculous situation.
> -- 
> 
>     HGW

Causality is Emergent from Every point in the Aether

((((2.176470e-8 kg) * ((1.616229e-35 m)^2)) / ((1.416808e+32 K) * ((5.39116e-44 s)^2))) / (hbar * 2)) * (2.45 K) =  1.60377326e+11 hertz 

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

#433683

On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 7:30:37 PM UTC-5, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 7:21:07 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote:
> > This diagram http://www.scisite.info/event.jpeg, is an X-T graph of a light source which emits an instantaneous flash of 
> > light at a certain location and time in a particular reference frame. It also shows a transform of that graph  into 
> > Frame 2, which is moving at v relative to Frame 1.
> > Normally, one would expect the slope of the worldline of the flash to be c in frame one and c-v in Frame 2. However SR 
> > claims that opposite fractional changes in the coordinates of both axes bring that latter slope back to c.
> > 
> > If that is accepted, what speed would an observer at rest in frame 2 now assign to frame 1 or the light source? It would 
> > appear that whilst Frame 2 is moving at v relative to frame 1, frame 1 is NOT moving at v relative to Frame 2.
> > 
> > Would a dingleberry expert please explain how their theory accounts for this seemingly ridiculous situation.
> > -- 
> > 
> >     HGW
> 
> Causality is Emergent from Every point in the Aether

The Aether is Temporally Skewed (Dilated) by the Local Mass Loading per unit Volume, lowering the energy density 
https://photos.app.goo.gl/vuFdnTY8wIoGIa043


Additional Mass Loading Same as Velocity

https://photos.app.goo.gl/JztB7rryghcFPGTh1

> 
> ((((2.176470e-8 kg) * ((1.616229e-35 m)^2)) / ((1.416808e+32 K) * ((5.39116e-44 s)^2))) / (hbar * 2)) * (2.45 K) =  1.60377326e+11 hertz

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

#433685

On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 7:53:27 PM UTC-5, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 7:30:37 PM UTC-5, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 7:21:07 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote:
> > > This diagram http://www.scisite.info/event.jpeg, is an X-T graph of a light source which emits an instantaneous flash of 
> > > light at a certain location and time in a particular reference frame. It also shows a transform of that graph  into 
> > > Frame 2, which is moving at v relative to Frame 1.
> > > Normally, one would expect the slope of the worldline of the flash to be c in frame one and c-v in Frame 2. However SR 
> > > claims that opposite fractional changes in the coordinates of both axes bring that latter slope back to c.
> > > 
> > > If that is accepted, what speed would an observer at rest in frame 2 now assign to frame 1 or the light source? It would 
> > > appear that whilst Frame 2 is moving at v relative to frame 1, frame 1 is NOT moving at v relative to Frame 2.
> > > 
> > > Would a dingleberry expert please explain how their theory accounts for this seemingly ridiculous situation.
> > > -- 
> > > 
> > >     HGW
> > 
> > Causality is Emergent from Every point in the Aether
> 
> The Aether is Temporally Skewed (Dilated) by the Local Mass Loading per unit Volume, lowering the energy density 
> https://photos.app.goo.gl/vuFdnTY8wIoGIa043
> 
> 
> Additional Mass Loading Same as Velocity
> 
> https://photos.app.goo.gl/JztB7rryghcFPGTh1
> 
> > 
> > ((((2.176470e-8 kg) * ((1.616229e-35 m)^2)) / ((1.416808e+32 K) * ((5.39116e-44 s)^2))) / (hbar * 2)) * (2.45 K) =  1.60377326e+11 hertz

((1 kg * G) / (c^2)) * (((1.616229e-35 m)^2) / ((5.39116e-44 s)^2)) = 6.67407911e-11 m^3 / s^2

((6.67407911e-11 (m^3)) / (s^2)) / ((c^2) * 2) = 3.71295725e-28 meters


https://photos.app.goo.gl/m2yzdKowJNcCqyOf1

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

#433686

On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 8:04:00 PM UTC-5, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 7:53:27 PM UTC-5, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 7:30:37 PM UTC-5, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > > On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 7:21:07 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote:
> > > > This diagram http://www.scisite.info/event.jpeg, is an X-T graph of a light source which emits an instantaneous flash of 
> > > > light at a certain location and time in a particular reference frame. It also shows a transform of that graph  into 
> > > > Frame 2, which is moving at v relative to Frame 1.
> > > > Normally, one would expect the slope of the worldline of the flash to be c in frame one and c-v in Frame 2. However SR 
> > > > claims that opposite fractional changes in the coordinates of both axes bring that latter slope back to c.
> > > > 
> > > > If that is accepted, what speed would an observer at rest in frame 2 now assign to frame 1 or the light source? It would 
> > > > appear that whilst Frame 2 is moving at v relative to frame 1, frame 1 is NOT moving at v relative to Frame 2.
> > > > 
> > > > Would a dingleberry expert please explain how their theory accounts for this seemingly ridiculous situation.
> > > > -- 
> > > > 
> > > >     HGW
> > > 
> > > Causality is Emergent from Every point in the Aether
> > 
> > The Aether is Temporally Skewed (Dilated) by the Local Mass Loading per unit Volume, lowering the energy density 
> > https://photos.app.goo.gl/vuFdnTY8wIoGIa043
> > 
> > 
> > Additional Mass Loading Same as Velocity
> > 
> > https://photos.app.goo.gl/JztB7rryghcFPGTh1
> > 
> > > 
> > > ((((2.176470e-8 kg) * ((1.616229e-35 m)^2)) / ((1.416808e+32 K) * ((5.39116e-44 s)^2))) / (hbar * 2)) * (2.45 K) =  1.60377326e+11 hertz
> 
> ((1 kg * G) / (c^2)) * (((1.616229e-35 m)^2) / ((5.39116e-44 s)^2)) = 6.67407911e-11 m^3 / s^2
> 
> ((6.67407911e-11 (m^3)) / (s^2)) / ((c^2) * 2) = 3.71295725e-28 meters
> 
> 
> https://photos.app.goo.gl/m2yzdKowJNcCqyOf1

(((1/3.71295725e-28) kg * (6.67407911e-11 * (m^3))) / (s^2)) / ((c^2) * 2) = 1 m kg

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

#433687

On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 8:06:08 PM UTC-5, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 8:04:00 PM UTC-5, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 7:53:27 PM UTC-5, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > > On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 7:30:37 PM UTC-5, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 7:21:07 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote:
> > > > > This diagram http://www.scisite.info/event.jpeg, is an X-T graph of a light source which emits an instantaneous flash of 
> > > > > light at a certain location and time in a particular reference frame. It also shows a transform of that graph  into 
> > > > > Frame 2, which is moving at v relative to Frame 1.
> > > > > Normally, one would expect the slope of the worldline of the flash to be c in frame one and c-v in Frame 2. However SR 
> > > > > claims that opposite fractional changes in the coordinates of both axes bring that latter slope back to c.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If that is accepted, what speed would an observer at rest in frame 2 now assign to frame 1 or the light source? It would 
> > > > > appear that whilst Frame 2 is moving at v relative to frame 1, frame 1 is NOT moving at v relative to Frame 2.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Would a dingleberry expert please explain how their theory accounts for this seemingly ridiculous situation.
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > 
> > > > >     HGW
> > > > 
> > > > Causality is Emergent from Every point in the Aether
> > > 
> > > The Aether is Temporally Skewed (Dilated) by the Local Mass Loading per unit Volume, lowering the energy density 
> > > https://photos.app.goo.gl/vuFdnTY8wIoGIa043
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Additional Mass Loading Same as Velocity
> > > 
> > > https://photos.app.goo.gl/JztB7rryghcFPGTh1
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > ((((2.176470e-8 kg) * ((1.616229e-35 m)^2)) / ((1.416808e+32 K) * ((5.39116e-44 s)^2))) / (hbar * 2)) * (2.45 K) =  1.60377326e+11 hertz
> > 
> > ((1 kg * G) / (c^2)) * (((1.616229e-35 m)^2) / ((5.39116e-44 s)^2)) = 6.67407911e-11 m^3 / s^2
> > 
> > ((6.67407911e-11 (m^3)) / (s^2)) / ((c^2) * 2) = 3.71295725e-28 meters
> > 
> > 
> > https://photos.app.goo.gl/m2yzdKowJNcCqyOf1
> 
> (((1/3.71295725e-28) kg * (6.67407911e-11 * (m^3))) / (s^2)) / ((c^2) * 2) = 1 m kg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations#Density_parameter

To date, the critical density is estimated to be approximately five atoms (of monatomic hydrogen) per cubic metre, whereas the average density of ordinary matter in the Universe is believed to be 0.2–0.25 atoms per cubic metre

0.2235995611451 AMU = 3.71295774e-28 kg

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

#433688

On 25/09/2017 10:21 AM, HGW wrote:
> This diagram http://www.scisite.info/event.jpeg, is an X-T graph of a 
> light source which emits an instantaneous flash of light at a certain 
> location and time in a particular reference frame. It also shows a 
> transform of that graph  into Frame 2, which is moving at v relative to 
> Frame 1.
> Normally, one would expect the slope of the worldline of the flash to be 
> c in frame one and c-v in Frame 2. However SR claims that opposite 
> fractional changes in the coordinates of both axes bring that latter 
> slope back to c.
> 
> If that is accepted, what speed would an observer at rest in frame 2 now 
> assign to frame 1 or the light source? It would appear that whilst Frame 
> 2 is moving at v relative to frame 1, frame 1 is NOT moving at v 
> relative to Frame 2.
> 
> Would a dingleberry expert please explain how their theory accounts for 
> this seemingly ridiculous situation.


If you apply the Lorentz transformation properly, rather than cherry 
picking bits of it (as you are doing), then the world line has the same 
slope in both frames.

Sylvia.

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

#433710

On 25/09/17 11:20, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 25/09/2017 10:21 AM, HGW wrote:
>> This diagram http://www.scisite.info/event.jpeg, is an X-T graph of a light source which emits an instantaneous flash 
>> of light at a certain location and time in a particular reference frame. It also shows a transform of that graph  into 
>> Frame 2, which is moving at v relative to Frame 1.
>> Normally, one would expect the slope of the worldline of the flash to be c in frame one and c-v in Frame 2. However SR 
>> claims that opposite fractional changes in the coordinates of both axes bring that latter slope back to c.
>>
>> If that is accepted, what speed would an observer at rest in frame 2 now assign to frame 1 or the light source? It 
>> would appear that whilst Frame 2 is moving at v relative to frame 1, frame 1 is NOT moving at v relative to Frame 2.
>>
>> Would a dingleberry expert please explain how their theory accounts for this seemingly ridiculous situation.
> 
> 
> If you apply the Lorentz transformation properly, rather than cherry picking bits of it (as you are doing), then the 
> world line has the same slope in both frames.

I know. That's what I said. You apparently don't know how to do it.
My main concern is about the worldline of the source.
It must also change  ....which means Frame 1 is not moving at v according to an observe at rest in frame 2


> 
> Sylvia.


-- 

    HGW

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

#433735

On 25/09/2017 3:42 PM, HGW wrote:
> On 25/09/17 11:20, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 25/09/2017 10:21 AM, HGW wrote:
>>> This diagram http://www.scisite.info/event.jpeg, is an X-T graph of a 
>>> light source which emits an instantaneous flash of light at a certain 
>>> location and time in a particular reference frame. It also shows a 
>>> transform of that graph  into Frame 2, which is moving at v relative 
>>> to Frame 1.
>>> Normally, one would expect the slope of the worldline of the flash to 
>>> be c in frame one and c-v in Frame 2. However SR claims that opposite 
>>> fractional changes in the coordinates of both axes bring that latter 
>>> slope back to c.
>>>
>>> If that is accepted, what speed would an observer at rest in frame 2 
>>> now assign to frame 1 or the light source? It would appear that 
>>> whilst Frame 2 is moving at v relative to frame 1, frame 1 is NOT 
>>> moving at v relative to Frame 2.
>>>
>>> Would a dingleberry expert please explain how their theory accounts 
>>> for this seemingly ridiculous situation.
>>
>>
>> If you apply the Lorentz transformation properly, rather than cherry 
>> picking bits of it (as you are doing), then the world line has the 
>> same slope in both frames.
> 
> I know. That's what I said. You apparently don't know how to do it.
> My main concern is about the worldline of the source.
> It must also change  ....which means Frame 1 is not moving at v 
> according to an observe at rest in frame 2

It's what you said. It's not what you did. In the image you talk 
contracting coordinates, but there's more the the Lorentz transformation 
than that.

Sylvia.

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

#433739

Den 25.09.2017 07.42, skrev HGW:
> My main concern is about the worldline of the source.
> It must also change  

Its projection into frame 2 is obviously different
from its projection into frame 1.


An arbitrary event on the world line of the source:

Frame 1: (source stationary)

  x = 0, t = t

Frame 2:

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

  The world line: x' = vt'

  dx'/dt' = -v

.. which means that the source and frame 1 is moving at
    the speed v in the negative x' direction in frame 2.

> ....which means Frame 1 is not moving at v according to an observe at rest in frame 2 

Down under upside down logic? :-D

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#433740

On 25/09/2017 9:28 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 25.09.2017 07.42, skrev HGW:
>> My main concern is about the worldline of the source.
>> It must also change 
> 
> Its projection into frame 2 is obviously different
> from its projection into frame 1.
> 
> 
> An arbitrary event on the world line of the source:
> 
> Frame 1: (source stationary)
> 
>   x = 0, t = t
> 
> Frame 2:
> 
>   t' = t/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>   x' = -vt/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> 
>   The world line: x' = vt'
> 
>   dx'/dt' = -v
> 
> .. which means that the source and frame 1 is moving at
>     the speed v in the negative x' direction in frame 2.
> 
>> ....which means Frame 1 is not moving at v according to an observe at 
>> rest in frame 2 
> 
> Down under upside down logic? :-D
> 

You mean Henry might live near me? That's a worry.

Sylvia.

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

#433749

Den 25.09.2017 13.29, skrev Sylvia Else:
> On 25/09/2017 9:28 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 25.09.2017 07.42, skrev HGW:
>>> My main concern is about the worldline of the source.
>>> It must also change 
>>
>> Its projection into frame 2 is obviously different
>> from its projection into frame 1.
>>
>>
>> An arbitrary event on the world line of the source:
>>
>> Frame 1: (source stationary)
>>
>>   x = 0, t = t
>>
>> Frame 2:
>>
>>   t' = t/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>>   x' = -vt/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>>
>>   The world line: x' = vt'
>>
>>   dx'/dt' = -v
>>
>> .. which means that the source and frame 1 is moving at
>>     the speed v in the negative x' direction in frame 2.
>>
>>> ....which means Frame 1 is not moving at v according to an observe at 
>>> rest in frame 2 
>>
>> Down under upside down logic? :-D
>>
> 
> You mean Henry might live near me? That's a worry.
> 
> Sylvia.

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge
8 Barlings Drive Tomakin NSW 2537 Australia

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#433791

On 25/09/17 23:00, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 25.09.2017 13.29, skrev Sylvia Else:
>> On 25/09/2017 9:28 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>> at rest in frame 2 
>>>
>>> Down under upside down logic? :-D
>>>
>>
>> You mean Henry might live near me? That's a worry.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge
> 8 Barlings Drive Tomakin NSW 2537 Australia

But the Grand Conspiracy intelligence network got it wrong....

Hahahhhahhaha!

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

#433832

Den 25.09.2017 15.00, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
> Den 25.09.2017 13.29, skrev Sylvia Else:
>> On 25/09/2017 9:28 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> Den 25.09.2017 07.42, skrev HGW:
>>>> My main concern is about the worldline of the source.
>>>> It must also change 
>>>
>>> Its projection into frame 2 is obviously different
>>> from its projection into frame 1.
>>>
>>>
>>> An arbitrary event on the world line of the source:
>>>
>>> Frame 1: (source stationary)
>>>
>>>   x = 0, t = t
>>>
>>> Frame 2:
>>>
>>>   t' = t/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>>>   x' = -vt/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>>>
>>>   The world line: x' = vt'

obvious typo! x' = -vt'

>>>
>>>   dx'/dt' = -v
>>>
>>> .. which means that the source and frame 1 is moving at
>>>     the speed v in the negative x' direction in frame 2.
>>>
>>>> ....which means Frame 1 is not moving at v according to an observe 
>>>> at rest in frame 2 
>>>
>>> Down under upside down logic? :-D
>>>
>>
>> You mean Henry might live near me? That's a worry.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge
> 8 Barlings Drive Tomakin NSW 2537 Australia
> 


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#434197

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 21:29:44 +1000, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

>You mean Henry might live near me? That's a worry.

Actual *dangerous* things live there.  "Henry" is an annoyance at worst.

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

#434219

On 28/09/2017 10:45 AM, Lofty Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 21:29:44 +1000, Sylvia Else
> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> 
>> You mean Henry might live near me? That's a worry.
> 
> Actual *dangerous* things live there.  "Henry" is an annoyance at worst.
> 

Dunno. While a few people die of snake bites each year, no one's died 
from spider bites in a long time.

On the other hand, people kill a lot of people, relatively speaking.

Sylvia.

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

#437650

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 13:00:11 +1000, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

>On 28/09/2017 10:45 AM, Lofty Goat wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 21:29:44 +1000, Sylvia Else
>> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>> 
>>> You mean Henry might live near me? That's a worry.
>> 
>> Actual *dangerous* things live there.  "Henry" is an annoyance at worst.
>> 
>
>Dunno. While a few people die of snake bites each year, no one's died 
>from spider bites in a long time.
>
>On the other hand, people kill a lot of people, relatively speaking.

Was making a joke.  I live in riparian central Alabama, in the US, in a
region covered 10% by water, where snakes and spiders far outnumber all
other inhabitants combined.  Oh, and we have bats.  Lots of bats.

No one here thinks much about them.  After all, they were here first.

I wonder if Henry is dangerous?  But I don't plan to think much about
him either.

-- 
Goat

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

#433790

On 25/09/17 21:28, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 25.09.2017 07.42, skrev HGW:
>> My main concern is about the worldline of the source.
>> It must also change 
> 
> Its projection into frame 2 is obviously different
> from its projection into frame 1.
> 
> 
> An arbitrary event on the world line of the source:
> 
> Frame 1: (source stationary)
> 
>   x = 0, t = t
> 
> Frame 2:
> 
>   t' = t/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>   x' = -vt/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Can you explain why the x coordinate should become LARGER in the moving 
frame when moving rods are supposed to shorten? Some readers might want 
to know.

How is it that the equation is not x' = -vt*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

If moving clocks run slow and moving rods shorten, how does that 
translate into both coordinates of the X-T diagram changing in the same 
sense? This is not obvious and some readers might want more information.

>   The world line: x' = vt'
> 
>   dx'/dt' = -v
> 
> ... which means that the source and frame 1 is moving at
>     the speed v in the negative x' direction in frame 2.
> 
>> ....which means Frame 1 is not moving at v according to an observe at 
>> rest in frame 2 
> 
> Down under upside down logic? :-D

If moving spatial intervals become smaller and moving time intervals 
become longer, the X-T coordinates will not change by the same factor.
Some readers might be confused by this.
If a time interval becomes longer, such as that defined by the period of 
an oscillator which drives a clock, that would cause the clock to run 
slow and the T coordinate to lengthen. CMIIW.
Are we viewing the Frame 2 coordinates from the POV of frame 1? Some 
readers might be confused about all this.

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

#433792

HGW, DSc. wrote:

>>   t' = t/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) x' = -vt/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> 
> Can you explain why the x coordinate should become LARGER in the moving
> frame when moving rods are supposed to shorten? Some readers might want
> to know.

Excellent question. There is no Natural reason why the space in front of 
the say, muon, should be shortened. Thank you so very much.

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

#433830

Den 25.09.2017 19.53, skrev HGW, DSc.:
> On 25/09/17 21:28, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 25.09.2017 07.42, skrev HGW:
>>> My main concern is about the worldline of the source.
>>> It must also change 
>>
>> Its projection into frame 2 is obviously different
>> from its projection into frame 1.
>>
>>
>> An arbitrary event on the world line of the source:
>>
>> Frame 1: (source stationary)
>>
>>   x = 0, t = t
>>
>> Frame 2:
>>
>>   t' = t/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>>   x' = -vt/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>>   The world line: x' = vt'
>>
>>   dx'/dt' = -v
>>
>> ... which means that the source and frame 1 is moving at
>>     the speed v in the negative x' direction in frame 2.
>>
> 
> Can you explain why the x coordinate should become LARGER in the moving 
> frame when moving rods are supposed to shorten? 

In other words:
Why is the source which is stationary in the stationary frame
moving in the moving frame when moving rods are supposed to
be shortened?

To quote a statement frequently uttered by
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge: "Hahahhhahhaha!"

> Some readers might want 
> to know >
> How is it that the equation is not x' = -vt*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

If you after having discussed SR in this forum for more
than 16 years still don't recognise the LT used on
a trivial example, nobody can help you.

> 
> If moving clocks run slow and moving rods shorten, how does that 
> translate into both coordinates of the X-T diagram changing in the same 
> sense? This is not obvious and some readers might want more information.

You are babbling.
There are no moving rods and no moving clocks.

> 
>>> ....which means Frame 1 is not moving at v according to an observe at 
>>> rest in frame 2 
>>
>> Down under upside down logic? :-D
> 
> If moving spatial intervals become smaller and moving time intervals 
> become longer, the X-T coordinates will not change by the same factor.
> Some readers might be confused by this.
> If a time interval becomes longer, such as that defined by the period of 
> an oscillator which drives a clock, that would cause the clock to run 
> slow and the T coordinate to lengthen. CMIIW.

Ralph, you are babbling!

> Are we viewing the Frame 2 coordinates from the POV of frame 1?

???  No, I am viewing it from my chair in front of my PC.

> Some readers might be confused about all this.
> 

I hardly think that "some users" can be as confused as you are! :-D


Frame 1: S is stationary. x = 0, t = t
     t
     |
     |
     | the world line of S  x = 0
     |
     |
----|---> x

The world line of S drawn in frame 2 is obvious,
you don't really have to use the LT.

Frame 2:
Since frame 2 is moving at v in the positive x direction,
the source is moving at v in the negative x' direction
       t'
\     |
  \    | the world line of S: x' = -vt'
   \   |
    \  |
     \ |
      \|
------|----> x'


How can this fail to be blatantly obvious to
the Doctor of science, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge,
who has studied maths and physics for 11 years
at the best universities in Australia?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web