# Absolute Reference Frame

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Prosoothus, Mar 27, 2006.

1. ### Physics MonkeySnow Monkey and PhysicistRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
869
Here is an amusing little tidbit some of you may have noticed. In Dale's third link, http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module2_FEB.htm, it is claimed at the end of the page that the force (defined as change in three momentum per unit coodinate time) between two moving charges is F = F_elec (1 - v^2/c^2) for small v. However, if you expand the formula I derived above, you find that the force is F = F_elec (1 - 1/2 v^2/c^2) to leading order. This is, incidentally, the same expression that Dale's fourth link, http://hepth.hanyang.ac.kr/~kst/lect/relativity/x850.htm, arrives at. Only one of us is correct, so can you spot the flaw?

to hide all adverts.
3. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
OK, I will briefly stop ignoring you to give you your "Duck and Weave" award.
Nobody is suggesting that:

(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup> = v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>

Certainly not me.
I gave no mathematical relationship, only noted that CANGAN's "paradox" predicts some form (not mathematically specified by me) of "time dilation." Thus is not much of a challenge to SR.

to hide all adverts.
5. ### DaleSpamTANSTAAFLRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,723
How embarassing

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. I admit it, I didn't carefully review each link before posting. I just Googled several that seemed to be describing the problem.

I am not sure what the error is, but since the Taylor series expansion of the time dilation factor [ 1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup> = 1 + 1/2 v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup> + O(v)<sup>4</sup> ] has the 1/2 factor, I suspect that the error is in the third link.

-Dale

to hide all adverts.
7. ### Physics MonkeySnow Monkey and PhysicistRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
869
Dale,

Think nothing of it! It certainly wasn't my intent to criticize this rather minor oversight. However, it may be interesting to others to try and track down the error, so I won't reveal the secret just yet.

8. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Being completely different curvatures I fail to see how one can conclude it suggests any such thing. Time dilation is either time dilation as emperically demonstrated (not some form of time dilation which thereby you claimed supported SR) or the relationship you suggested does not exist. But that isn't worth an arguement.

9. ### CANGASRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,612
And CANGAS would be making a sure bet if he predicted that any subject that even remotely could be distorted to alledgedly include time dilation as an important factor, would be perverted so by BillyT.

1 + 1 = 2. This must surely be modified by time dilation. Right, BillyT?

The gist of my paradox, that three observers, moving at varying velocities including perhaps zero, would necessarily observe, ACCORDING TO SR, three contradictary states of motion may be wrong. It may be right. But if it is wrong then it definitely takes more than a vague, vague, vague declaration that "SR can handle time dilation" to prove it to be wrong.

BillyT: Why don't you be the hero and SPECIFICALLY point out the logical flaws in the CANGAS three-observer paradox?

I assure you, if I am proved CONCLUSIVELY wrong in concluding that the reciprocity of SR produces this fatal flaw, I will be as happy as the most fanatical Relativyist, that I can lay down this Relativy problem and get it behind me. And behind science.

Last edited: Apr 2, 2006
10. ### DaleSpamTANSTAAFLRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,723
Tom2, PM, and I have already done so.

-Dale

11. ### DaleSpamTANSTAAFLRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,723
Given your deplorable math skills this is not surprising. However, it has no bearing on the correctness of BillyT's claims.

This is based on the two electrons moving in parallel scenario above and subscripts 0 denote proper quantites and subscripts v denote coordinate quantities:

F<sub>0</sub>/F<sub>v</sub> = a<sub>0</sub>/a<sub>v</sub> = (d²x/dt<sub>0</sub>²)/(d²x/dt<sub>v</sub>²) = dt<sub>v</sub>²/dt<sub>0</sub>² = γ²

F<sub>0</sub>/F<sub>v</sub> = F<sub>elec</sub>/(F<sub>elec</sub>-F<sub>magn</sub>) = 1/(1-F<sub>magn</sub>/F<sub>elec</sub>) = 1/(1-v²/c²)

γ² = 1/(1-v²/c²)

-Dale

PS As shown below this does not consitute a derivation of γ, but only a demonstration that the v²/c² term implies γ even though they have "different curvatures".

Last edited: Apr 2, 2006
12. ### CANGASRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,612
Those with a frantic desire to maintain a "credibility" within their pro-Relativity academic or employment mileaus might be considered to have enough of a bias to claim a victory when it is not true.

13. ### DaleSpamTANSTAAFLRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,723
Just because someone is biased doesn't make them wrong.

Is an ad hominem rebuttal the best you can do? If so at least make it a good ad hominem, your last was pretty lame.

-Dale

14. ### CANGASRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,612
However, someone who is biased, because of unemployment fear, will perhaps try to put on a good show so that the boss will know that the nice little employee is trying to defend the status quo.

When a gross paradox inherent in SR is revealed, it is very normal that pro Relativyists will use SR math and logic to defend it. Doing so, they miss the point that if basic logic logic and math condemn SR, it is wrong.

15. ### Tom2Registered Senior Member

Messages:
726
For Christ's sake, just read the rebuttals. Your claim has been soundly debunked.

16. ### CANGASRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,612
My claims are that SR demands any and EVERY observer is inherently the prime, stationary observer.

Two like signed charged particles, each having zero velocity wrt an observer, will be observed to have a violent mutual repulsion. Where has this been successfuly rebutted? If this has been proven wrong, Coulomb's law has been overthrown.

Two like signed charged particles, each having some a velocity of one meter per hour wrt an observer, will be observed to have a violent mutual attraction. Where has this been successfuly rebutted? If this has been proven wrong, the official definition of the Ampere is wrong, and in fact the engineering basis of every electric motor or generator is totally dysfunctional.

Two like signed charged particles, each traveling at a specific velocity between zero and one meter per hour, wrt an observer, will therefore have a magnetic field exactly equal to the electric field, and will be observed to have no net force active mutually. Where has this been successfully rebutted?

Special Relativity demands that EVERY observer be considered the prime, stationary observer. SR does not say that they take turns, or that someone can pick and choose as to which observer is the REAL prime observer. Where have any of you successfuly rebutted this?

When EVERY observer has the cat bird seat simultaneously, and actually has a different velocity, then the observed object(s), due to SR reciprocity, have different velocities SIMULTANEOUSLY. According to SR, and the observation of each observer, the observed object has different velocities simultaneously, concommitant whatever results may be the just due of the laws of physics for whatever velocity is used for logical thought and for mathematical calculation. Three observers observing simultaneously can only mean that the "moving" observed object has three simultaneous states of motion. Where have you successfuly rebutted the reciprocity of SR?

Perhaps you have not chosen to claim successful rebuttal of SR, and have not yet done so. Your jobs and tenure are safe.

17. ### DaleSpamTANSTAAFLRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,723
Right. You have found me out. It certainly is a term of my employment that I get positive reviews from obscure crackpots like you on an internet forum about a subject like SR that is completely outside my field.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

True, if basic logic and math condem SR it is wrong. So post some math already. I have been suggesting you do so for pages now. So far all of the math on this thread has been conclusive in support of SR. You are turning into MacM: frothing at the mouth about your sound logic without ever backing it up with math.

You are the biased one. Logic and math are clearly presented from multiple sources including 3rd party sources, and you close your eyes to it all so as not to upset your precious crackpot biases. (see, ad hominem is much more effective when you are specific and back it up with some actual evidence instead of vague innuendo)

-Dale

18. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
This has already been done, but in case you missed it:

The two moving observers are imaginary* - can not exist. The one who sees the two electrons moving to gether must be traveling faster than the speed of light to make the magnetic field over power the electric static repulsion.

The one who sees them with no motion because the magnetic and electric forces exactly balance must be moving at the speed of light.

I did not realize this either, until Tom2 and PM**, pointed it out so, initially I thought CANGAS's "paradox" ws a strong challenge to SR. A few hours later, by adding a couple of electrodes, I convert the idea into a clock that "ticked" at least once. (1 tick = time of flight of electrodes from their release until they were collected on my electrodes.)

For example, if one observer is traveling at a possible speed, say c/2 there will be a partial cancellation of the electric force, by the magnetic force and he will see the electrons separate more slowly. Thus, for him, the "flying electron clock" is ticking more slowly or time is dilated.

Thus, instead of being a challenge to SR, as we both thought, CANGAS's gedenken predicts at least the same effect as SR. I did not try to show that the equations of SR for time dilation can be derived from transforming Maxwell's equation into the moving coordinate frame (as usual, too lazy) but do think this a worth while effort for someone to try. (Such a derivation of SR equations may not be possible, but I do not see why it should not work.)
-----------------------------------
*If we can postulate CANGAS's two moving observers, what is to prevent the SR supporters from postulating the SR "faries" who always interfer to make SR ture? We must not postulate impossible agents or observers.
**Later by edit: Sorry Dale, I did not mean to slight you. I alway go back to my last post and work my way forward, replying as need be. - I had not seen your post or remember that you too had shown why CANGAS's paradox requires "impossilbe observers." You are good with math and not as lazy as me. Why not try to see if SR's equations can be derived from the clock I converted CANGAS's set up into?

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 2, 2006
19. ### DaleSpamTANSTAAFLRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,723
This fact has been used in all of the derivations that you have so steadfastly ignored.

So show it already. You make this claim with no supporting math or logic. I have been requesting that you do so for pages now. I am surprised that you think that the official definition of the Ampere is relevant since two wires with no current have no electrostatic repulsion and two like-charge particles have, in your own words, "violent mutual repulsion".

This has been successfully rebutted in all of the posts with actual math: the posts you are trying to ignore. All such posts have shown that the velocity is c, not something less than 1 m/s. Since the math and logic clearly indicate c your claim that it is some other number is the one that needs to be explained.

Why would we try to rebut that when we have used it in our derivations?

-Dale

20. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
If I may, to make your statement fully correct, I re-write it with one more word, the bold one:

Special Relativity demands that EVERY possible observer be considered the prime, stationary observer

One can not postulate observers moving faster than speed of light or faries watching from some other dimension, etc.

21. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
to CANGAS:
Just for the record:
I retired 12 years ago, live in Brazil on my Social Security income. While I don't think that is entirely safe (I expect drastic drop in purchasing power of dollar soon) I do not think the SS department cares whether I support SR or not.

You should follow my example: I initially said that I thought CANGAS's paradox was a much stronger challange to SR than the twin paradox ever was, but I am able to learn and now know better.

22. ### Physics MonkeySnow Monkey and PhysicistRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
869
My my, look at all that ruckus earlier, and now CANGAS goes out with a whimper.

P.S. I am definitely part of the evil conspiracy. I steal tax dollars from good ol' fashioned non-relativist US citizens to further my lies.

23. ### DaleSpamTANSTAAFLRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,723
No worries, I usually go through the posts the same way.

I did show a derivation of the time-dilation formula using this scenario, but not specifically using your clock. However, I do not think that both time dilation and length contraction can be derived with a single clock (at least not with a traditional light clock nor one of these electron clocks).

However, in my derivation I made an implicit assumption that there was no length contraction in the perpendicular direction:
x = x<sub>0</sub> = x<sub>v</sub>

which was critical for these steps:
a<sub>0</sub>/a<sub>v</sub> = (d²x/dt<sub>0</sub>²)/(d²x/dt<sub>v</sub>²) = dt<sub>v</sub>²/dt<sub>0</sub>²

If I had made the opposite assumption, that there were no time changes (t = t<sub>0</sub> = t<sub>v</sub>), then I would have predicted a perpendicular length expansion and derived a Voigt transform result instead of a Lorentz transform result. I still don't know of any purely theoretical way to derive the Lorentz transform over the Voigt transform, although experimental evidence clearly favors Lorentz.

-Dale