# Discussion: Lorentz invariance of certain zero angles

Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by Pete, Nov 25, 2011.

1. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265
No, the first flagged issue was the fatal flaw in your derivation. See here, immediately after your posted solution, the very next post. So, as per rules, please address the issue.

I will (re)start answering AFTER you address the flaw I flagged first. As an aside, the document contains all the answers, I even spared you the effort to track down the references, I included the complete derivations in the document.

Last edited: Jan 28, 2012

3. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,166
It's really not appropriate for you to edit that document after you've presented it to the debate. Please revert it back to it's original form, and post any corrections or additions to the debate thread.
This is why I didn't want calculations in an offsite document to begin with.

5. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265
There are no "corrections"

The additions are simply in order to explain away your misunderstandings. I ended up posting every intermediate step of each derivation. Either way, you should address the issue I raised at post 119. Please do so.

7. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,166
Tach, there is no question posed in post 119.
I'm also a little concerned over your impatience.
Don't you agree that it is important that we both understand how to transform vectors?
If we don't, then we can't constructively discuss something that relies on that understanding, right?

8. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,166
Thanks, I'll check itout.
Yes, I will do so when we're both satisfied that we both understand how vectors transform. That understanding is fundamental to this part of the discussion, so I think it's important that we get it right before moving on.

9. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265
No, it isn't. The flaw in your derivation is fundamental.

10. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265
I pointed out a fatal flaw and I gave you the reference to the condition your derivation fails. That is the question you need to address FIRST.

Sure, and I gave you references, I also explained the various approaches in great detail. Problem is, the flaw in your derivation transcends vector transformation.

11. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,166
With your permission, I will edit the tracking list in[post=2895831]post 121[/post] to mark:
3.1.1 Lorentz transformation of vectors as Complete
3.1.3 Angle between surface and velocity in the low velocity limit (Galilean spacetime) as Active
3.1.3.1 Rindler's proof of angle invariance as Active​

12. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265
With the caveat that the transformation for displacement vectors is clearly dependent on the condition of simultaneity. A different result is obtained for different conditions of simultaneity. Yet a different result is obtained when no condition is imposed.

ok.

13. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,302
Pete:

Regarding adherence to the agreed rules, I'm not sure what it is exactly that you want arbitration about. Is there still an issue? If so, what is it? And what outcome are you seeking?

----

Comment on the debate:

Since Tach was the first to bring Moller into the discussion, I can only wonder why Tach would want to rely on a source he considers flawed or substandard. :shrug:

14. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,166
So, not complete. I'll mark it "Pending."

15. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,166
The issue has passed, thanks.

16. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,166
I can't edit that post anyway. It can wait for the next page.

17. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265
Excellent, I just posted an explanation.

18. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,166
I've replied.
I don't think we disagree on how to transform vectors.
I think the issue is specifically with how to transform the tangent $\hat{P_t}(t)$ transforms to the tangent $\hat{P_t}'(t')$, so I'd like to start that as a new subissue.

19. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265
I agree, it narrows down to this particular sub-issue. I have responded.

20. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,166
It seems we're now focused on the general Lorentz transform for displacement vectors.

21. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265
Yes. More exactly on the transformation of non-stationary vectors.

22. ### PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,166
No, displacement vectors in general.

23. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,302
This is nonsense. Essentially:

$\Delta r = r_1 - r_2$

And dr is just the limit of this as the difference between the two displacement vectors becomes infinitesimal.

There's no differentiation involved here.