SR Issue

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by chinglu, Jun 11, 2014.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    My opinion is based on three premises.
    [1] After more then 100 years of data and observations supporting SR and GR, and the many applications and experiments which support both, I don't believe we have another Einstein [you] that has anything other then an agenda, to show SR/GR is wrong.

    [2]rpenner has shown your calcs to be lacking. I have faith in his conclusions rather then your own.

    [3] I remember you and your prolonged rather inane claims about time dilation and associated effects in alternative theories months ago, and your usual stubborness then to accept obvious facts, that a 10 year old would recognise.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    I can put it in your lingo.

    When C' and M are co-located, event Q is valid for the frame Σ.
    When C' and M are co-located, event R is valid for the frame Σ'.

    When C' and M are co-located, event LT(Q) is valid for the frame Σ'.
    When C' and M are co-located, event LT(R) is valid for the frame Σ.

    However, LT(Q) != R and LT(R) != Q.

    Hence, if C' and M are co-located, Q is valid for the frame Σ and so is LT(R).
    Hence, if C' and M are co-located, R is valid for the frame Σ' and so is LT(Q).

    Therefore, SR claims when C' and M are co-located, the light flash is at Q and LT(R) with LT(R) != Q, so 2 different places.
    Therefore, SR claims when C' and M are co-located, the light flash is at R and LT(Q) with LT(Q) != R, so 2 different places.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Ummmm, where is my math wrong?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    You already have your answer...And my prediction over your obvious continued stubborness.
     
  8. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    I am only interested in science and math discussion. Thanks anyway.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    SR predicts the following, all which have been CONFIRMED
    [1] Relativity of Simultaneity:
    [2] Time Dilation:
    [3] Length Contraction:
    [4] E=Mc2 [Or mass-energy equivalence:


    Are you in conflict with any of the confirmed results, all obtained over more than 100 years of experimental and observational data?
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    You havn't answered my five confirmed points re the validity of SR yet?
     
  11. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Not interested. Start your own thread.
     
  12. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Chinglu, you calculated both position and time of events Q and R in frame Σ and in Σ'. What is the law of nature that says a flash of light can't be at two different positions at two different times? What is the speed of light moving from Q to R in frame Σ? What is the speed of light moving from Q to R in frame Σ'?
    Using the Minkowski inner product, line f is orthogonal to line j in any frame and line h is orthogonal to line k in any frame.
     
  13. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    First off, I never claimed there was a law of nature that would not place a light flash at two different places at two different times. Further, I am assuming light is c to all frames and observers. So, your post above is meaningless.

    The issue here is to determine under all SR calculations where the light flash is located when C' and M are co-located. This is but one time in each frame and I proved that and with great difficulty got you to accept that.

    Where I am deeply concerned is that you did not answer my extremely simple post. Now, if you are not able to handle it, simply admit it.

    Here it is again. Try to keep in mind all conclusions and calculations are based on M and C' being co-located.

    When C' and M are co-located, event Q is valid for the frame Σ. (This assumes LP is correct)
    When C' and M are co-located, event R is valid for the frame Σ'. (This assumes LP is correct)

    When C' and M are co-located, event LT(Q) is valid for the frame Σ'. (This assumes LT correctly translates)
    When C' and M are co-located, event LT(R) is valid for the frame Σ. (This assumes LT correctly translates)

    However, LT(Q) != R and LT(R) != Q. (This show LP and LT do not agree when M and C' are co-located)

    Hence, if C' and M are co-located, Q is valid for the frame Σ and so is LT(R).
    Hence, if C' and M are co-located, R is valid for the frame Σ' and so is LT(Q).

    Therefore, SR claims when C' and M are co-located, the light flash is at Q and LT(R) with LT(R) != Q, so 2 different places.
    Therefore, SR claims when C' and M are co-located, the light flash is at R and LT(Q) with LT(Q) != R, so 2 different places.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    So you agree that SR is correct?
    You just have a problem with the maths? Is that correct?
     
  15. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Right, so in every frame events Q and R happen at different times and different places, so you only mistake is assuming the phrase "when M and C' are co-located" has some universal meaning independent of frames. No law of nature is violated -- the only thing that is violated is your assumption of the universality of simultaneity. Lines j and k are different lines. Therefore \(Q \neq R\), because no law of nature would make it possible for Q and R to be the same event.

    Event P, the only place and time in the whole of space-time where M and C' are co-located, is far away from both Q and R, so the notion of which of Q or R happens at the same time as P is dependent on choice of coordinate systems. That's what relativity of simultaneity means.
    Yes, I did, in [post=3198606]post #2[/post].

    All of this was briefly explained in [post=3198606]post #2[/post].
     
  16. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    I did not agree to any universal meaning independent of frames, I proved when M and C' are co-located, both frames agree on the time of their respective frames. This is simple SR. Are you saying this is false? Further I never said Q=R is required under SR, since it is not.

    Now, you again ran in terror from my post. The only reason you would do this is because you know you are totally wrong. Are you terrified to answer these questions? Do not forget, you pretend to be an expert to all those reading this thread.
    They will understand by your fear you have no idea what you are doing.

    Here it is again. Try to keep in mind all conclusions and calculations are based on M and C' being co-located.

    When C' and M are co-located, event Q is valid for the frame Σ. (This assumes LP is correct)
    When C' and M are co-located, event R is valid for the frame Σ'. (This assumes LP is correct)

    When C' and M are co-located, event LT(Q) is valid for the frame Σ'. (This assumes LT correctly translates)
    When C' and M are co-located, event LT(R) is valid for the frame Σ. (This assumes LT correctly translates)

    However, LT(Q) != R and LT(R) != Q. (This show LP and LT do not agree when M and C' are co-located)

    Hence, if C' and M are co-located, Q is valid for the frame Σ and so is LT(R).
    Hence, if C' and M are co-located, R is valid for the frame Σ' and so is LT(Q).

    Therefore, SR claims when C' and M are co-located, the light flash is at Q and LT(R) with LT(R) != Q, so 2 different places.
    Therefore, SR claims when C' and M are co-located, the light flash is at R and LT(Q) with LT(Q) != R, so 2 different places.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543


    Oh my oh my oh my......Are you really serious?
    Have you not learnt from your other anti SR stance a few months ago.
    Time dilation and length contraction occur.
    That is observed everyday.
    Are you going to question them again, or have you accepted that your mathematical ability is somewhat askew.

    ps: No one runs in terror from you. That is just your own delusion.
    People have continually shown you are wrong...
    You continually blissfully and ignorantly ignore them...
    People do get rather tiresome of answering your nonsensical claims and just give up.
    If you had anything, anything at all, you would get it peer reviewed.
    That is what is obvious to most reading this thread.
    And this is why this thread will eventually be moved or scrapped, if you are not open and honest about what is being put to you.
     
  18. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Prove your assertion.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I can certainly prove the assertion that you were totally banned from Cosmoquest, and you have had threads shifted before on this forum, from Maths and Physics to pseudoscience and/or Alternative theories.

    As brucep said, you are fooling no one with your "Prove it" complexity, and again, until you get what you are claiming peer reviewed you have zilch, nada, SFA and nothing.

    Now some questions again......
    Do you know what time dilation is?..and how it ties in with SR?
    Do you know what length contraction is? and how it ties in with SR?
    Do you know what SR and its postulates mean?
    Do you object/deny the legitimacy of peer review?
    When you look at the Sun today, do you know that you are actually looking at it as it was 8.25 minutes ago?
    Do you realize there is no Universal now, and that Albert Einstein showed conclusively that both time and space are not absolute?

    If you object to any of those FACTS, then you [using your own childish tactics, must prove it]
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2014
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    This thread is about SR and its validity. You have been banned here and elsewhere with your consistent baseless assumptions in the face of 100 years of evidence showing SR is factual, time dilation does occur, and length contraction does take place.
    You know you will probably be banned again, and this thread probably will be shifted.
    You are using invalidated mathematics to cover those facts, and fail to accept your error as detailed by rpenner.
    Your record in the past matches very similar occurrences both here and elsewhere and your continuing stubborness in ignoring factual evidence.

    Those are the facts chinglu. Nothing more, nothing less.
     
  21. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Refute the post that RPenner can't and has not refuted. Otherwise, move along.

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141840-SR-Issue&p=3199693&viewfull=1#post3199693

    If you think he has refuted it, prove it.
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
  23. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141840-SR-Issue&p=3199693&viewfull=1#post3199693

    Can you refute it or no.

    And, I am not sure what this all says. So, move along.
     

Share This Page