Time in Special Relativity

Jack, the lorentz transform is a complete description of SR.
There is no prediction of SR that can't be derived from Lorentz Transforms of suitable events.

I'm glad that you are happy to accept those tables of transforms at face value, even though you don't seem to have even tried to understand them. You know, I don't think you've once posted a complete lorentz transform, despite repeated requests (please feel free to prove me wrong), so I'm still not confident you actually understand what a lorentz transform is. But anyway.

Are you sure you agree that the posted tables show correct Lorentz Transforms?
Because next, I will show you how they clearly demonstrate time dilation, and clearly demonstrate expanding light spheres.

You could see it yourself, if you put in a little effort.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The same cannot be said for your understanding of the implications and the overall mathematical structure related to them.

You always jump to saying "I corrected you" or "I taught you", never acknowledging or accepting the fact you have started threads asking us for help on these matters so your claim you're teaching us is not only unjustified but contracted by your own posts!

Everyone who has a qualification in a subject which covers either the maths or physics of Lorentz transformations would disagree with you. And has. Anyone who has formal education and passed tests on this disagrees with you.

Anything with refutes the mathematical consistency is since the consistency is known. Refuting the experimental applicability of Lorentz transformations is an entirely different matter and the notion of having models which do not have Lorentz invariance on all scales is one which regularly arises in the physics community. Last year Horava gravity, which doesn't have Lorentz invariance at short scales, was the hot topic in the theoretical physics community. Not that you'd know.

This is contradictory since SR is nothing but the physical implications of the mathematical structure of Lorentz invariance in a manifold. They aren't somehow different things which must be melded together, they are two sides of the same coin. You'd know this if you'd studied either of them or were willing to read books which cover them.

A li.e Every person who knows Einstein's work due to formal education disagrees with you. I've already explained you have not come up with anything new, its actually a pretty obvious and straight forward result that different frames disagree on the spacial position of the centre of a light sphere time slice of a light cone for slices which do not include the light cone apex. It follows immediately from the fact time-like vectors are not Lorentz invariant and while neither are null vectors the surface they form (ie the light cone) is.

You have done nothing new mathematically and you simply make the same physical misinterpretations and mathematical misunderstandings made by many people before you when first faced with non-Euclidean geometry.

And the fact you don't have the balls to submit your work to a reputable journal proves you know you're talking hogwash but you aren't man enough to admit it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I see.

SR contends that light proceeds in the moving frame spherically from the light emission point in the frame.

OK, I want to know, using LT, when in the time coords of the stationary frame that light is a distance r from the light emission point in the moving frame.

If there are multiple times in the staionary frame for this answer, then LT cannot predict it and further, LT is incomplete and flawed.

That would imply LT cannot predict and prove one of its own vital conclusions that if false, SR falls.


Obviously, I already know the answer to all this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let's do math and logic.


Can you do this?

 

That's right. Look at the Lorentz transform tables.
In the moving frame at t'=r/γc, the light flashes are at x'=-r/γ and x'=r/γ.
In the moving frame at t'=r/c, the light flashes are at x'=-r and x'=r.
In the moving frame at t'=γr/c, the light flashes are at x'=-γr and x'=γr.

Look at the tables. Find the events for LL and LR where x'=r.
There is one for each flash:
LL (x',t')=(-r, r/c). (x,t)=\((-\gamma r(1-\frac{v}{c}),\ \ \frac{\gamma r}{c}(1-\frac{v}{c}))\)
LR (x',t')=(r, r/c). (x,t)=\((\gamma r(1+\frac{v}{c}),\ \ \frac{\gamma r}{c}(1+\frac{v}{c}))\)

Does that answer your question?

Wrong, Jack. The predictions are complete and precise.

 

Nope, sorry.

We are calculating from the stationary frame to the moving frame.

Try to do that in order to do it correctly.

If SR is consistent, you will be able to do it this way.

Since you know SR is correct, it will not take you long.

 

Aldready done, Jack. The tables cover transforms from stationary to moving, and moving to stationary.

Put in some effort. Look at the tables.
The questions you're asking are already answered.

 

I did.

LT will calculate an answer for the point in the moving frqame.

What you have failed to do is apply time dilation and the light sphere for the moving frame.

Do you believe one or the other is false?

 

It's becoming ever clearer that you have little idea what a lorentz transform does.

Jack, time dilation and frame independence of light speed is built right in to the transforms.

Which one can you not see in the tables?

 

I have already corrected James on his miscalculation of an LT transform.

Why do you run from time dilation and the light sphere?

Show your faith in SR.

 

Alright, this trolling has gone on for long enough. Put him out of our misery.

Ban request: Jack_

 

For what.

Are you saying I said something false?

I lay out specific logic.

Trollers like you do nothing.

So, if you found something I said that is false, then prove it wrong troller.

Othewise, you should be banned for stepping in over your head.

 

Liar.

I don't, Jack.
Like I said, time dilation and frame independence of light speed is built right in to the transforms, and is demonstrated in the tables I posted.

Do you not see it?

 

Light spheres

We see that at all times in the moving frame, the left and right flashes are equal distances from O':
At t'=r/γc, the light flashes are at x'=-r/γ and x'=r/γ.
At t'=r/c, the light flashes are at x'=-r and x'=r.
At t'=γr/c, the light flashes are at x'=-γr and x'=γr.

We see that at all times in the stationary frame, the left and right flashes are equal distances from O:
At t=r/γc, the light flashes are at x=-r/γ and x=r/γ.
At t=r/c, the light flashes are at x=-r and x=r.
At t=γr/c, the light flashes are at x=-γr and x=γr.

 

Time dilation
We see that in the moving frame, the clock at O runs slowly:
For O at t'=0, t=0
For O at t'=r/γc, t=r/γγc
For O at t'=r/c, t=r/γc
For O at t'=rγ/c, t=r/c

Wee see that in the stationary frame, the clock at O' runs slowly:
For O' at t=0, t'=0
For O' at t=r/γc, t'=r/γγc
For O' at t=r/c, t'=r/γc
For O' at t=rγ/c, t'=r/c

 

I second that motion.

 

Trolling.

Almost everything you say is provably false. But that's not the problem.

This is: You consistently misrepresent your own (rudimentary) understanding of physics, mathematics, biology and science in general, by using technical terms of which you have no understanding. You goad the other members of the forum into responding to you by constantly challenging them to refute your (non-sensical) points, and then ignore the refutations. You then continue to assert your falsehoods as proven, with (entirely misplaced) condescension. You block-quote long, detailed posts and then completely ignore the content of the post you quoted. You consistently lie. That makes you a bit of a prick, in my book, and I'd like to see you gone.

Hence, ban request: Jack_

 

Is there some reason you refuse to respond to anything I say? If you're so sure of your position why can't you enter into a discussion? All you do is default to your "Lets do the math" so you can repeat your already debunked work.

And yes I can do the maths and explain. Despite repeatedly putting it forward you've retorted nothing. You multiple times claim no one has responded with maths. I must have put those posts in front of you about half a dozen times. You've not retorted them, though you have quoted them which makes it all the move obvious you're a lying fraud when you say "No one has responded". Anyone reading threads (1 and 2) where you make claims will see you have a tendency to demand people respond, quote their lengthy replies all in one go and then ignore everything they said so you can stick to your one and only talking point of "OMG these points disagree, its a contradiction!!" when the very replies you've quoted explain why it is not.

If you have nothing to hide you'll reply to what people say, as Peter, Rpenner and myself do. If you've got nothing to hide you'll submit your work to a reputable journal, which I've offered to help with because I have nothing to hide. Your actions are those of someone who knows he's a fraud but cannot bring himself to say it out loud.

 

You are welcome, with this aggression, to attack my twins contradiction.

You are forewarned. I will take firm hand of correction to your statements in that thread.

If you are correct, you will have no problem attacking that thread.

How long will this take?