New article shows a fatal math error in SR

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by chinglu, Aug 9, 2013.

1. chingluValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,637
You have no idea what you are talking about.

The article is based on the SR light postulate in which light moves in any frame at c. Hence, any light pulse will proceed spherically from the light emission point in the frame and that is true for all frames.

If you do not understand this, go to the page below and it will give a simple demonstration.

So, the math is based strictly on the SR light postulate combined with the LT. that is exactly SR.

3. chingluValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,637
I thought this was a math thread.

A math proof was given in the article of the OP and published by the editor, who has published in the Annals of Mathematics, (and you have not).

So, if you can refute the math proof, which you can't, then you are forced to comply with the conclusions.

So, how about providing the math to support your conclusions as the OP did.

5. Fednis48Registered Senior Member

Messages:
725
This article shows that in the frame where the mirror is moving, the light pulse will hit the mirror at a point where the mirror is facing away from the center of the light pulse. However, the mirror is moving. If the mirror's horizontal motion is faster than that of the light pulse, it can still reflect the light "ahead" of it and avoid absorbing any of the light "behind" it. The initial assumption the authors make implies that the slower the mirror is moving, the higher up it must be (and so the smaller the light pulse's horizontal velocity component will be when they meet), so this condition can always be met. Whoever approved this article for publication should be investigated for academic integrity.

7. Aqueous Idflat Earth skepticValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,152
He clearly told you what he was talking about, and he demonstrated knowledge of the setup that invalidates the claim. You, on the other hand, have made no attempt to discover that for yourself.

And you're still in Bugtussle, not Timbuktu, which makes all of your arguments moot. You can't have it both ways. You can't deny SR and at the same time get a fix on your position through GPS.

So grow up and stop whining.

8. Aqueous Idflat Earth skepticValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,152
I asked you - what math. billvon & fednis have already explained that it's a false premise. The rest is smoke and -- well, mirrors. The math is pointless.

Here's his premise: move the mirror from Einstein's position of (x',0) with x' > 0 to (x',y) with x' < 0 and y > -x'√( c² / v² - 1). Compare that with what the other folks just said and explain why that invalidates SR. And check your fix on Bugtussle and explain how it can possibly be correct.

9. billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,644
But its relationship to the mirror is NOT the same in all frames. That is where he makes his error.

10. chingluValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,637
Your conclusions are false. It is not necessary that the mirror moves in the unprimed frame faster than light in the horizontal direction.

First, the mirror is located in the prime frame at (x'<0,y>0) with the reflective side of the mirror facing the primed origin. Anyone can understand a light pulse will be reflected off the mirro for all y > 0.

So, no one would dispute that simple conclusion.

Now, let's look in the unprimed frame. At the same instant the light pulse is emitted from the two origins when they are common, the reflective side of the mirror is on the negative side of the x axis for both frames, so the reflective side is facing the origin of both frames.

However, given v and x'<0, one can select a y large enough such that as the mirror moves in the unprimed frame at v while the light pulse is expanding, the mirror crosses the y-axis of the unprimed frame and so by the time the light pulse hits the mirror in the context of the unprimed frame, the light pulse strikes the back side of the mirror which does not reflect.

So, the article provides the exact math for y such that if the mirror is located at (x'<0,y>0) in the primed frame, then LT translates this to some (x>0,y>0).

11. chingluValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,637
No, the article clearly assumes light takes a different path for each frame in order to strike the mirror. That in fact is the whole point of the article. So, you are wrong.

12. chingluValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,637
Yes, that is where you move the mirror.

Now follow the math in the article. Use LT to translate (x'<0, y > -x'√( c² / v² - 1)) and you will find that translates using LT to x>0.

That means the unprimed frame claims the light strikes the back side of the mirror.
It's that simple.

13. brucepValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,098
I'm saying you're a crank and so is the author of that juvenile bullshit in 'The mirror whatever paper'. The one I think you wrote. It doesn't matter were folks are published if they're responsible for publishing that kind of crap. As far as I'm concerned I don't give a darn if you ever figure it out. I'd be shocked if you decide to change to the intellectually honest path. Nothing you say will register on me just based on what I already know about you. One way, intellectually dishonest, scientifically illiterate by choice, crank. Peace.

14. chingluValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,637
The author depends on the fact that the relationship of the light sphere to the mirror is different for any to frame.

That is the whole point of the article.

And, that disagreement also results in the primed frame claiming the light pulse will reflect off the mirror.

On the other hand, the unprimed frame claims the light pulse hits the backside of the moving mirror and so the same light pulse does not reflect off the mirror which is a contradiction.

15. Fednis48Registered Senior Member

Messages:
725
You didn't understand my objection. When the light pulse in the unprimed frame reaches the mirror, if the mirror's horizontal velocity is higher than the light's horizontal velocity, the front side of the mirror will hit and reflect the light in front of it. The back side, meanwhile, will be moving too fast to be struck by the light behind it. And because of the way the author specified y in terms of v, this condition will always be met.

16. chingluValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,637
It is quite simple.

You are claiming for (x'<0,y>0), there is no y for which LT translates to (x>0,y.0).

The article proves you are wrong.

Now, if you can prove there is no such y given v and x', then your conclusions are valid.

But, since the editor of the article concurs there are such y's (given her incredible ability in math since she published in the Annals of mathemativs) and the article proves that, then we can now see why this article was published.

17. billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,644
Correct! And only one of those frames is valid FROM THE MIRROR'S PERSPECTIVE.

Think about it. The mirror is not going to see the light coming from two different directions no matter how the source (or observer frame) is moving.

18. chingluValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,637
I understood your objection and I will repeat.

Please re-read your answer given the fact that the light pulse strikes the mirror when it is on the positive side of the x-axis. Therefore, it strikes the back of the mirror.

That is all there is to it.

19. chingluValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,637

The question is does the light pulse reflect off the mirror in the context of both frames in the calculations of SR.

The answer is that SR predicts that the one light pulse reflects off the mirror and yet it does not reflect off the mirror. That is a contradiction because the theory then predicts there will be a reflected light beam traveling through space and there will not be such a reflected light beam traveling through space.

This is a contradiction to physical reality.

20. Fednis48Registered Senior Member

Messages:
725
That's just not true. If the mirror is moving faster than the light horizontally, the front of the mirror strikes the light and the back of the mirror is untouched. It's the same reason why driving down the highway you get lots of bugs on your front windshield but none on your back.

21. brucepValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,098
I'm to old to worry about to much. If chinglu is going to be a 'z......... aire' I might think about doing some turd polishing.

22. Aqueous Idflat Earth skepticValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,152
What in the world would anyone do that for, Andrew Banks?

Anything is possible from an invalid premise. No one has disproven SR, and, as your fix in Bugtussle tells you, it's absurd to even claim this. So far all you are doing is discrediting the principles of Geometry from which the consequences of positing a false hypothesis rejects the "math" that purports to be the proof. That's your downfall, back at square 1.

Simple minded, oversimplified, yes, but not a valid proof of anything except the admission by Andrew Banks "Hey look at me! I'm a dolt! I can prove anything simply by beginning with the premise 1=2 !"

The entire premise of this thread is contradicted by your fix on yourself in Bugtussle. Go out on your rowboat, have a few beers, and try to figure out why GPS keeps finding you. That's the thread you need to open, over in Conspiracy Theories. This one is dead on arrival. But whatever you do, don't drive drunk. Just sleep it off and face the horror of your ignorance in the morning.

23. billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,644
Again, one reference frame has no meaning. It does not represent reality to the mirror. Only the mirror's frame is real to the mirror. Thus only the mirror's frame determines what happens with a light pulse impinging on it.

No, it doesn't. You have misunderstood the givens of the problem.