Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #383919 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-21 14:38 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-05-23 18:20 +0200 |
| Articles | 6 on this page of 86 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Questions for SRians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-21 14:38 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-21 20:56 -0500
Re: Questions for SRians JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 10:54 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 09:35 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-24 08:40 -0500
Re: Questions for SRians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-24 07:21 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 09:30 -0500
Re: Questions for SRians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-24 07:28 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 09:54 -0500
Re: Questions for SRians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-24 16:55 +0000
Re: Questions for SRians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 13:55 -0500
Re: Questions for SRians Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-24 14:59 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 09:19 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-24 12:14 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 14:18 -0500
Re: Questions for SRians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 06:50 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 09:40 -0500
Re: Questions for SRians rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 13:00 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 06:40 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 08:46 -0500
Re: Questions for SRians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 07:06 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-25 14:51 +0000
Re: Questions for SRians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 13:44 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 14:05 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-26 04:51 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 07:29 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-26 08:33 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 08:53 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-26 09:23 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 11:56 -0500
Re: Questions for SRians rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 13:01 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 16:12 -0500
Re: Questions for SRians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-26 05:14 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 09:00 -0500
Re: Questions for SRians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-25 22:45 +0000
Re: Questions for SRians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-26 06:16 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 09:23 -0500
Re: Questions for SRians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-26 08:19 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:25 -0500
Re: Questions for SRians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-26 09:19 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 12:59 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-26 14:40 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 14:59 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-26 14:43 +0000
Re: Questions for SRians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-26 08:10 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 08:21 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-26 16:26 +0000
Re: Questions for SRians "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-26 09:42 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 11:57 -0500
Re: Questions for SRians benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-26 13:28 -0400
Re: Questions for SRians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 13:33 -0500
Re: Questions for SRians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-26 14:16 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 16:54 -0500
Re: Questions for SRians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-26 17:36 +0000
Re: Questions for SRians RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-27 10:50 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 14:48 -0500
Re: Questions for SRians RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-27 14:51 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 17:03 -0500
Re: Questions for SRians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-26 13:53 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 14:06 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-26 14:57 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-27 02:46 +0000
Re: Questions for SRians RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-26 10:11 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-27 11:17 -0500
Re: Questions for SRians RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-28 16:11 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 08:22 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 08:46 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 09:15 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 13:35 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 14:02 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 11:35 -0500
Re: Questions for SRians Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 11:41 -0500
Re: Questions for SRians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-25 08:59 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 09:20 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-25 21:48 -0500
Re: Questions for SRians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-26 06:09 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2016-05-25 00:04 +0200
Re: Questions for SRians Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 16:47 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-27 12:03 -0500
Re: Questions for SRians Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 14:34 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-05-29 22:04 -0500
Re: Questions for SRians Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 22:26 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-06-03 10:42 -0500
Re: Questions for SRians Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-05-22 14:20 +0200
Re: Questions for SRians kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-23 08:37 -0700
Re: Questions for SRians Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-05-23 18:20 +0200
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 22:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <cPadnSiXXchbMNbKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #384577 |
On 5/29/16 5/29/16 4:34 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:03:29 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 4:47:28 PM UTC-7, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>> The Lorentz transform if written in the form using (dt, dx, dy, dz)
>>> instead of (t, x, y, z) should satisfy any non-inertial frames of
>>> references as well.
>>
>> You keep saying this. IT IS WRONG. Apparently you do not understand very
>> basic mathematics.
>>
>> Let me demonstrate how and why it is wrong. Consider the LT in two dimensions
>> between two sets of coordinates (x,t) and (x',t') with relative velocity v:
>>
>> x' = g(v)(x - v t) = A(x,t) {defines A(x,t)}
>> t' = g(v)(t - v x / c^2) = B(x,t) {defines B(x,t)}
>> g(v) = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>>
>> Now derive the transform in differential form (@ = partial derivative):
>>
>> dx' = @A(x,y)/@x dx + @A(x,t)/@t dt = g(v)(dx - v dt)
>> dt' = @B(x,t)/@x dx + @B(x,t)/@t dt = g(v)(dt - v dx / c^2)
>>
>> Now it should be clear that for a LINEAR TRANSFORM the formulas for the
>> coordinate transform and the differential transform are the same (mutatis
>> mutandis). It should also be obvious that this is so ONLY for a linear
>> coordinate transform.
>>
>> Between almost all pairs of non-inertial "frames", and between any inertial
>> frame and any non-inertial "frame", the coordinate transform is nonlinear.
>> Your claim is disproven.
>
> Just how does the above prove Koobee Wublee wrong?
In a clear and obvious way to anybody who understands basic mathematics.
Apparently this does not include you.
Remember we have (from the definitions of A() and B() above)
x' = A(x,t)
t' = B(x,t)
So, from the definition of partial differentiation, we have:
dx' = @A(x,y)/@x dx + @A(x,t)/@t dt "Set a"
dt' = @B(x,t)/@x dx + @B(x,t)/@t dt
Thus the ONLY case in which the differential LT holds
dx' = g(v)(dx - v dt) "Set b"
dt' = g(v)(dt - v dx / c^2)
is when
@A(x,y)/@x = g(v)
@A(x,t)/@t = -g(v) v
@B(x,t)/@x = g(v)
@B(x,t)/@t = -g(v) v / c^2
(OK, you're unable to follow basic math, so I'll point out
that both "Set a" and "Set b" must hold for all possible
values of dx and dt, so we can equate the coefficients of
them in the two sets of equations; that's all I did here.)
These last 4 equations show QUITE CLEARLY that the transform must be linear. BUT
AS I SAID: Between almost all pairs of non-inertial "frames", and between any
inertial frame and any non-inertial "frame", the coordinate transform is
nonlinear. So your claim is disproven.
(OK, you're unable to follow basic math, so I'll point out
that the last 4 equations can be integrated trivially to give
x' = A(x,t) = g(v)(x - v t)
t' = B(x,t) = g(v)(t - v x / c^2)
Note that these are i) LINEAR in x and t, and ii) the original
Lorentz transform we started with. Only (i) matters here.)
Later you say:
> Tom’s claim has no support just erroneous and empty statements.
My "claim" is:
>> LET is the LORENTZ Ether Theory, and it uses the LORENTZ transform.
This is INDISPUTABLE, because THIS IS WHAT THOSE WORDS MEAN.
>> But it does not really matter, as the Larmor transform between two given
>> frames is algebraically identical to the Lorentz transform between the same
>> frames.
>
> This is just not true since Larmor’s and the Lorentz transforms differ
> mathematically.
Prove it.
(OK, we'll all watch while KW simply abandons the thread without
presenting any evidence in support of his claim. Because, of
course, there is no possible support for such blatantly wrong
claims. They LOOK different, but are algebraically identical;
but KW is unable to follow basic math and deceived himself.)
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations#Larmor_.281897.2C_1900.29
The Larmor transform (final form) is:
x' = g (x - v t)
y' = y
z' = z
t' = t/g - g (x - v t) v / c^2
g = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
The first three are manifestly the same as the Lorentz transform.
The fourth just takes elementary algebra to put it into the usual
form of the Lorentz transform.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 22:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fac7304b-545f-4860-8d06-533bae385ccb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #384587 |
On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 8:04:40 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > Koobee Wublee wrote: > > The Lorentz transform if written in the form using (dt, dx, dy, dz) > > instead of (t, x, y, z) should satisfy any non-inertial frames of > > references as well. > > Remember we have (from the definitions of A() and B() above) > x' = A(x,t) > t' = B(x,t) > So, from the definition of partial differentiation, we have: > dx' = @A(x,y)/@x dx + @A(x,t)/@t dt "Set a" > dt' = @B(x,t)/@x dx + @B(x,t)/@t dt > Thus the ONLY case in which the differential LT holds > dx' = g(v)(dx - v dt) "Set b" > dt' = g(v)(dt - v dx / c^2) > is when > @A(x,y)/@x = g(v) > @A(x,t)/@t = -g(v) v > @B(x,t)/@x = g(v) > @B(x,t)/@t = -g(v) v / c^2 Yes. <shrug> > (OK, you're unable to follow basic math, so I'll point out > that both "Set a" and "Set b" must hold for all possible > values of dx and dt, so we can equate the coefficients of > them in the two sets of equations; that's all I did here.) Nonsense, you nincompoop! How does that mathematics prove Koobee Wublee wrong? All mathematical models that satisfy the null results of the MMX satisfy what Tom has elementarily written above. What the fuck, Tom! <shrug> > [more ranting nonsense that actually exposes Tom’s ignorance snipped] <shaking head> > My "claim" is: “LET is the LORENTZ Ether Theory, and it uses the LORENTZ > transform.” And that remains Tom’s baseless claim. <shrug> > This is INDISPUTABLE, because THIS IS WHAT THOSE WORDS MEAN. Ahahaha! Is Tom playing a fucking idiot? LORENTZ Ether Theory can only be the LORENTZ transform if claimed. <shrug> > > This is just not true since Larmor’s and the Lorentz transforms differ > > mathematically. > > Prove it. Once again, here it is that Tom has fucking ignored for the n’th time. <shrug> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/qnFbRQrXb0k/k-liW9RFr_wJ > [rest of idiotic rants from Tom snipped] Tom is nothing but a snake oil salesman who knows nothing about mathematics nor physics. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 10:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <acadnXYy07LPOMzKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #384591 |
On 5/30/16 5/30/16 - 12:26 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 8:04:40 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: >> Koobee Wublee wrote: >>> The Lorentz transform if written in the form using (dt, dx, dy, dz) >>> instead of (t, x, y, z) should satisfy any non-inertial frames of >>> references as well. >> Remember we have (from the definitions of A() and B() above) >> x' = A(x,t) >> t' = B(x,t) >> So, from the definition of partial differentiation, we have: >> dx' = @A(x,y)/@x dx + @A(x,t)/@t dt "Set a" >> dt' = @B(x,t)/@x dx + @B(x,t)/@t dt >> Thus the ONLY case in which the differential LT holds >> dx' = g(v)(dx - v dt) "Set b" >> dt' = g(v)(dt - v dx / c^2) >> is when >> @A(x,y)/@x = g(v) >> @A(x,t)/@t = -g(v) v >> @B(x,t)/@x = g(v) >> @B(x,t)/@t = -g(v) v / c^2 > > Yes. <shrug> > >> (OK, you're unable to follow basic math, so I'll point out >> that both "Set a" and "Set b" must hold for all possible >> values of dx and dt, so we can equate the coefficients of >> them in the two sets of equations; that's all I did here.) > > Nonsense, you nincompoop! Here the nincompoop is clearly Koobee Wublee -- You agreed with the equations and then called the explanation of how they were obtained "nonsense". You don't even know your own mind. > How does that mathematics prove Koobee Wublee wrong? It quite clearly shows that the Lorentz transform in differential form applies only to LINEAR TRANSFORMS, which only occur between inertial frames. (And some very special pairs of non-inertial "frames", which are a negligibly small subset of the set of all pairs of non-inertial "frames".) So your claim that the Lorentz transform in differential form "should satisfy any non-inertial frames of reference" is just plain wrong. >> My "claim" is: “LET is the LORENTZ Ether Theory, and it uses the LORENTZ >> transform.” > And that remains Tom’s baseless claim. <shrug> >> This is INDISPUTABLE, because THIS IS WHAT THOSE WORDS MEAN. > Ahahaha! Is Tom playing a fucking idiot? No, I don't "play" like that. But Koobee Wublee _IS_ a fucking idiot. Lorentz created and described the Lorentz Ether Theory (LET), and he naturally used his own derivation of the transform. All of the documents that describe LET were written by LORENTZ, including his 1904 paper which introduced the LORENTZ transform in its final form. Just because Larmor's name also starts with "L" does NOT mean he was involved; he wasn't. > LORENTZ Ether Theory can only be the LORENTZ transform if claimed. <shrug> > >>> This is just not true since Larmor’s and the Lorentz transforms differ >>> mathematically. >> >> Prove it. > > Once again, here it is that Tom has fucking ignored for the n’th time. <shrug> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/qnFbRQrXb0k/k-liW9RFr_wJ Koobee Wublee again references his own post, in which he fails to show any difference between the two transforms WHEN WRITTEN BETWEEN A GIVEN PAIR OF FRAMES. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 14:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nhs864$1kis$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #383919 |
Op 21-mei-2016 om 23:38 schreef kenseto: > Why is the SRT math only have time dilation and length contraction > equations? > > Why is there no time expansion and length expansion equations? Tom already replied. I will add this. Picture this carefully: You and I are in relative motion. We know that because if are not careful, we might smash into one another. I have a clock at rest in my system. The time between two ticks on my clock is defined as the proper time between the ticks of my clock. When we use the Lorentz transformation to calculate the time interval between the same two ticks from my clock, but now in your system in which my clock is moving, then we find that "your" time interval is dilated w.r.t. "my" proper time. You have a clock at rest in your system. The time between two ticks on your clock is defined as the proper time between the ticks of your clock. When we use the Lorentz transformation to calculate the time interval between the same two ticks from your clock, but now in my system in which my clock is moving, then we find that "my" time interval is dilated w.r.t. "your" proper time. I have a stick at rest in my system. The distance between the two endpoints of my stick is defined as the proper length of my stick. When we use the Lorentz transformation to calculate the distance between the same two endpoints of my stick, but now in your system in which my stick is moving, then we find that "your" length is contracted w.r.t. "my" proper length. You have a stick at rest in your system. The distance between the two endpoints of your stick is defined as the proper length of your stick. When we use the Lorentz transformation to calculate the distance between the same two endpoints of your stick, but now in my system in which your stick is moving, then we find that "my" length is contracted w.r.t. "your" proper length. Note that my clock is not your clock, and that my stick is not your stick. These are all entirely different objects. I measure properties of and about your objects. You measure properties of and about my objects. > > Does that mean thatSRT is based on the concept that the SRT observer > assumes that he is in a preferred frame.....the aether frame and > that's why SRT and LET have the same math? No, it assumes that you and I see similar things about each other's objects. > > Does that mean that the inertial frame in SRT is just another name > for the aether frame? No, it means that my frame and your frame are on equal footing. No frame is preferred. And aethers are out of the picture. > > Thank you for your answers. > Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 08:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <05c4138e-e2df-44d0-842a-9b7c9d058e4d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #383935 |
On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 8:20:23 AM UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > Op 21-mei-2016 om 23:38 schreef kenseto: > > Why is the SRT math only have time dilation and length contraction > > equations? > > > > Why is there no time expansion and length expansion equations? > > Tom already replied. I will add this. > > Picture this carefully: > > You and I are in relative motion. We know that because > if are not careful, we might smash into one another. > > I have a clock at rest in my system. The time > between two ticks on my clock is defined as the > proper time between the ticks of my clock. > When we use the Lorentz transformation to calculate > the time interval between the same two ticks from > my clock, but now in your system in which my clock > is moving, then we find that "your" time interval > is dilated w.r.t. "my" proper time. What you said contradicts actual observations....clocks in relative motion will accumulate clock seconds at different rates....that means that between two clocks A and B if the correct prediction for A is that B's clock second is worth gamma clock seconds on his clock then the correct the correct prediction for B is that A's clock second is worth 1/gamma second on his (B's) clock. > > You have a clock at rest in your system. The time > between two ticks on your clock is defined as the > proper time between the ticks of your clock. > When we use the Lorentz transformation to calculate > the time interval between the same two ticks from > your clock, but now in my system in which my clock > is moving, then we find that "my" time interval > is dilated w.r.t. "your" proper time. > > I have a stick at rest in my system. The distance > between the two endpoints of my stick is defined as > the proper length of my stick. > When we use the Lorentz transformation to calculate > the distance between the same two endpoints of my > stick, but now in your system in which my stick is > moving, then we find that "your" length is > contracted w.r.t. "my" proper length. In real life (and in SR) the material length of a meter stick is not changed due to relative motion. SR says that the projected length of a moving meter stick onto the observer's coordinate system is foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma. It is clear that this invented projection effect explanation is not very satisfying....and it is not verifiable experimentally. To this end I invented a new interpretation for the LC equation as follows: 1. The material length of a meter stick remains the same in all frames. 2. The length-path length (LPL) of the observer's meter stick is assumed to be it material length. 3. The LPL of a moving meter stick is predicted to be gamma or 1/gamma meter long...dependent on the state of absolute motion of the moving meter stick compared to that of the observer's absolute motion. If the stick has a higher state of absolute motion than the observer then the correct prediction is that its LPL is gamma meters long. If the stick is in a lower state of absolute motion then the correct prediction is that its LPL is 1/gamma meters long. The above concept on length contraction is included in my new theory of relativity called IRT. A paper on IRT is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > > You have a stick at rest in your system. The distance > between the two endpoints of your stick is defined as > the proper length of your stick. > When we use the Lorentz transformation to calculate > the distance between the same two endpoints of your > stick, but now in my system in which your stick is > moving, then we find that "my" length is contracted > w.r.t. "your" proper length. > > Note that my clock is not your clock, and that my > stick is not your stick. These are all entirely > different objects. > I measure properties of and about your objects. > You measure properties of and about my objects. > > > > > Does that mean thatSRT is based on the concept that the SRT observer > > assumes that he is in a preferred frame.....the aether frame and > > that's why SRT and LET have the same math? > > No, it assumes that you and I see similar things about > each other's objects. > > > > > Does that mean that the inertial frame in SRT is just another name > > for the aether frame? > > No, it means that my frame and your frame are on equal > footing. No frame is preferred. And aethers are out > of the picture. > > > > > Thank you for your answers. > > > > Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 18:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nhvalc$boa$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #384006 |
Op 23-mei-2016 om 17:37 schreef kenseto: > On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 8:20:23 AM UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote: >> Op 21-mei-2016 om 23:38 schreef kenseto: >>> Why is the SRT math only have time dilation and length contraction >>> equations? >>> >>> Why is there no time expansion and length expansion equations? >> >> Tom already replied. I will add this. >> >> Picture this carefully: >> >> You and I are in relative motion. We know that because >> if we are not careful, we might smash into one another. >> >> I have a clock at rest in my system. The time >> between two ticks on my clock is defined as the >> proper time between the ticks of my clock. >> When we use the Lorentz transformation to calculate >> the time interval between the same two ticks from >> my clock, but now in your system in which my clock >> is moving, then we find that "your" time interval >> is dilated w.r.t. "my" proper time. > > What you said contradicts actual observations.... I said, picture this carefully. CAREFULLY. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web