Special Relativity nonsense

[paddoboy]

That right, and I have already shown that if that is true for T1 meeting N2 then that isn't true for N1 meeting T2 which is impossible.

OK, so then let's presume that one being a total moron, agrees with your erroneous conclusions, tell me why then are you here? Why not write up a professional paper disputing SR with all your "supposed evidence" and submit it for professional peer review? You could be in line for this year's Nobel for physics!
Yet the truth is, you can't and you won't, because like another fool here in the past [chinglu] all you have to spray your nonsense with/on, is a public science forum, open to any Tom, Dick and Harry, or Zeno.

 

[James R]

Zeno:

Maybe I should have been more clear.
There is only one moment when T1 reaches N2, but there are 2 events. T1 reaches N2 in the reference frame of ship1. T1 reaches N2 in the reference frame of ship2.

There's no possible in frame in which, when T1 is aligned with N2, a person at T1 could not look across and see N2, and vice versa. If you like, think about the instant at which those two people make eye contact. That is a single event. One event, not two events. And if that happens in one frame of reference, then it happens in every frame of reference.

These events must be simultaneous for both ship1 and ship2.

You're using "simultaneous" the wrong way, like I've told you three or four times by now. The word "simultaneous" is used to compare two or more events in a single frame of reference.

From now on, every time you use the word "simultaneous" to compare events in two different frames, I'm going to remind you with a buzzer. It will sound like this: "Bah-Bowm!" Okay?

So there are 2 events that are simultaneous for the ships and there is only one moment when this occurs.

Bah-Bowm!

Given that fact, if you go back a little bit in time then the event N1 reaching T2 in the reference frame of ship1 and the event N1 reaching T2 in the reference frame of ship2 are not simultaneous which is a physical impossibility.

Bah-Bowm!

Previously, we agreed that to get from the T1/N2 alignment to the T2/N1 alignment, we need to go "back a little in time" in the frame of ship 1, and forward a little in time in the frame of ship 2.

Remember that you agreed that the time ordering of these two events is the opposite in the two frames.

Are you going back on that agreement now?

I even made a small diagram to make that clear.

Yes. I also made diagrams and very carefully and patiently walked you through the scenario. And Janus, over a year ago, did an even more thorough job trying to teach you about your scenario. And in the year between then and now, you've made no progress at all. You're still stuck on the same point as when you started. It seems you don't even read the explanations properly. They don't go in. They just fly past you, like your spaceships.

What did you not understand? You said you agreed with my analysis. Are you now going back on that? Have you decided to now ignore the explanation I gave you, and your agreement with it?

So in order to make it so that there is no physical impossibility James R moves ship1 in the opposite direction relative to ship2 without justification.

No. The velocities of the two ships are constant throughout. I have not changed their motion one bit from what you initially specified in your scenario. I have not "moved" them.

Previously, you agreed to the following:

1. In the frame of ship 1, the T1/N2 alignment event occurs after the N1/T2 alignment event.
2. In the frame of ship 2, the T1/N2 alignment event occurs before the N1/T2 alignment event.
3. The time order of the T1/N2 and the N1/T2 alignment events are opposite in the two frames.

Note that we only need any 2 of these 3 statements, then the third one follows from the other two.

Given that you agree with these statements, it follows that if you want to go from the T1/N2 alignment to the N1/T2 alignment, you must wind the clock on ship 1 backwards and the clock on ship 2 forwards.

If you want to withdraw your agreement to one or more of the three bolded statements above, you need to let me know clearly why you are saying the statement you believe to be false is false.

 

[James R]

OK, so then let's presume that one being a total moron, agrees with your erroneous conclusions, tell me why then are you here? Why not write up a professional paper disputing SR with all your "supposed evidence" and submit it for professional peer review?

That's irrelevant here. Zeno is just making mistakes applying the theory. There's no possible paper he can write that will disprove relativity based on his mistakes about how the theory applies. His argument here is not about any evidence for relativity. Nor is he providing evidence against relativity. He is just mistaken about to how to use the theory itself.

If a person claims to be using a theory, like Zeno is here, and it is demonstrated that he is not using it properly, then it is an open and shut case of his being wrong. Nothing can change that. The question of whether the theory is true in the real world is a completely separate issue, and not one that has been raised in this thread.

Zeno's only "argument" against the theory of relativity in this thread is that it predicts an outcome that, for personal reasons unknown to us, he considers "impossible". He has demonstrated no "paradox", despite claiming that one exists. He is just stubbornly refusing to accept that the theory says what it says. That's just him sticking his head in the sand.

If he could actually show that special relativity was self-contradictory or produced a logically absurd result, or something like that, then maybe he'd have some material to write a paper. However, that's a fruitless hope when it comes to special relativity, because the entire theory rests on just two (or arguably one) postulates. To take the theory down, you really need to show that the postulates are wrong. You can't destroy it from within by assuming the postulates are correct and then refusing to accept the implications and results derived from those postulates. Even worse, you can't hope to make a dent in the theory when you make basic mistakes in applying it in your "disproofs".

 

[paddoboy]

That's irrelevant here. Zeno is just making mistakes applying the theory. There's no possible paper he can write that will disprove relativity based on his mistakes about how the theory applies. His argument here is not about any evidence for relativity. Nor is he providing evidence against relativity. He is just mistaken about to how to use the theory itself.

If a person claims to be using a theory, like Zeno is here, and it is demonstrated that he is not using it properly, then it is an open and shut case of his being wrong. Nothing can change that. The question of whether the theory is true in the real world is a completely separate issue, and not one that has been raised in this thread.

Zeno's only "argument" against the theory of relativity in this thread is that it predicts an outcome that, for personal reasons unknown to us, he considers "impossible". He has demonstrated no "paradox", despite claiming that one exists. He is just stubbornly refusing to accept that the theory says what it says. That's just him sticking his head in the sand.

If he could actually show that special relativity was self-contradictory or produced a logically absurd result, or something like that, then maybe he'd have some material to write a paper. However, that's a fruitless hope when it comes to special relativity, because the entire theory rests on just two (or arguably one) postulates. To take the theory down, you really need to show that the postulates are wrong. You can't destroy it from within by assuming the postulates are correct and then refusing to accept the implications and results derived from those postulates. Even worse, you can't hope to make a dent in the theory when you make basic mistakes in applying it in your "disproofs".

OK, I'll accept that.

 

[Zeno]

Earlier I drew the following diagrams:
ship1 at rest on top

       T-----------------------N
<----- N----------T

ship2 at rest at bottom.

T-------N ------->
N--------------------T

Going back a little bit in time.....

ship1 at rest on top

   T-------------------------N
           <----- N----------T

James R redrew this:
ship2 at rest at bottom.

T------N ----->
            N---------------------T

as this.....
ship2 at rest on bottom

                          T------N ----->
           N---------------------T

He moved ship1 in the opposite direction that it normally travels.
So let's go a little further back in time.....
ship1 at rest on top

T-------------------------N
                   <----- N----------T

So using James R's diagram and going further back in time and moving ship1 in the opposite direction that it normally travels we get this...
ship2 at rest on bottom

                         T------N ----->
N---------------------T

So now we have a paradox involving N1/N2! N1 and N2 are lined up and can see each other from the reference frame of ship1 and yet from the reference frame of ship2 N1 and N2 are not lined up and the observers can't see each other.
So is James R going to prevent a paradox by moving ship1 to the left instead of to the right?
So starting out like this....
ship2 at rest at bottom.

T-------N ------->
N--------------------T

going back in time and move ship1 to the right
ship2 at rest at bottom.

             T-------N ------->
N--------------------T

going back further in time move ship1 to the left
ship2 at rest at bottom.

      T-------N ------->
              N--------------------T

So is that what should be done or do we have a paradox at N1/N2?

 

[Neddy Bate]

Here are TWO sequential events, as viewed from airplane A at rest. In this frame, the first event is the alignment of NA&TB, and the second event is the alignment of TA&NB.

          TA--------------------------------------NA                      airplane A
                           <-- NB-----------------TB                      airplane B

          TA--------------------------------------NA                      airplane A
      <-- NB-----------------TB                                           airplane B

Here are the same two events, as viewed from airplane B at rest. In this frame, the first event is the alignment of TA&NB, and the second event is the alignment of NA&TB.

          TA-----------------NA -->                                       airplane A
          NB--------------------------------------TB                      airplane B

                               TA-----------------NA -->                  airplane A
          NB--------------------------------------TB                      airplane B

That is all. If you're worried about the time when TA was all by itself in the top diagram, that would have been an even earlier time in the other frame. If you're worried about the time when NB was all by itself in the bottom diagram, that would have been an even later time in the other frame.

 

[James R]

Zeno:

Why did you ignore my detailed answers to your previous posts on this matter, to simply repeat the same error all over again?

Why did you not respond to my questions to you about the time ordering of the two alignment events?

What's wrong with you? Short attention span? Faulty memory? On drugs? Too stupid to take in what is said to you? Or are you trolling?

Then again, you're the guy who has been struggling with this simple stuff for about 20 years now, aren't you? When will you admit it's beyond you?

Once again, referring to your most recent post, your error is here:

Going back a little bit in time.....

In the frame of ship 1, to get from the T1/N2 alignment to the T2/N1 alignment, you must wind ship 1's clock back, like you say.
In the frame of ship 2, to get from the T1/N2 alignment to the T2/N1 alignment, you must wind ship 2's clock forward, like everybody apart from you says.

For some reason, you want to wind ship 2's clock back as well, which has it going in the wrong direction to get to the event you're interested in.

James R redrew this:

And James R carefully explained what the diagram shows, and why it shows that. More than once.

James R also asked you a set of basic questions. You agreed with James R that he was correct.

Yet here you are, a few posts later, and it's like none of that ever happened.

What's wrong with you?

He moved ship1 in the opposite direction that it normally travels.

No, I didn't.

Moreover, I carefully explained this in detail in my last reply to you. Yet here you are, pretending it never happened.

What's wrong with you?

----

Look, clearly you're struggling with these diagrams. Why don't you just apply the Lorentz tranformation equations to the spacetime coordinates of the two events in ship 1's frame, to translate to ship 2's frame, and look at what comes out of that exercise?

Are you able to use the Lorentz tranformation equations yourself? Do you even know what they are? You've had 20 years+ to learn some of this stuff you pretend to be interested in. How have you used all that time?

So is James R going to prevent a paradox by moving ship1 to the left instead of to the right?

Ship 1 is moving to the right in ship 2's frame, in terms of the scenario you set up. To be specific, as time on ship 2 advances from past to future, ship 1 moves to the right.

Is that clear enough for you? As you know, I have never said anything different to that.

If you roll time backwards on ship 2, then ship 1 will look like it's moving to the left, of course, but there's no need to do that. We're concerned here with two fixed events in spacetime. We don't even have to worry about the "flow" of time. All we need to know is which event happened first, in whichever frame.

Previously, you agreed that the two alignment events happen in the opposite time order in the two frames. Are you going back on that, now?

There are no paradoxes here.

---

Now, seeing as you appear to be ignoring detailed and careful explanations that are put to you, I'm going to end with a warning. If you keep telling lies about what I've told you, or you fail to address the matters that have been put to you, or you ignore careful and detailed explanations, I will assume you are merely trolling, and I will close this thread.

Last chance. If you're confused, try asking questions rather than making statements. You can learn something, even after 20 years of wasting your time.

 

[Zeno]

Ship1 at rest.

Ship2 at rest.

Ship1 at rest.


Ship2 at rest.

N of ship1 passes T of ship2 twice;

Once when T of ship1 is at -0.5.
Again when T of ship1 is at 0.25.

Once when N of ship2 is at -0.25.
Again when N of ship2 is at 0.5.

T of ship1 passes N of ship2 twice;

Once when N of ship1 is at -0.75.
Again when N of ship1 is at 0.

Once when T of ship2 is at 0.
Again when T of ship2 is at 0.75.

 

[James R]

Zeno:

You're resurrecting this thread after and 18 month gap from my previous reply.

Do you intend to reply to the previous post I made to you?

Merely presenting some out-of-context new diagrams, without explanation or argument, is pointless, especially after such a long delay.

Now you have had 21+ years to learn something about relativity. What have you learned?

 

[James R]

N of ship1 passes T of ship2 twice;

That is incorrect.

Also, as usual, you're not specifying frames along with your time and space coordinates.

Make sure you specify one reference frame or the other when you're giving coordinates, or making statements about events that occur (including time ordering and time or distance intervals).

 

[DaveC426913]

You're resurrecting this thread after and 18 month gap from my previous reply.

Cut him some slack. He responded as soon as he could.
It's taken him a year and a half to make those diagrams - 85 sec0nds per pixel.

 

[James R]

Zeno:

Let me ask you a more pointed question, to get to the heart of your ongoing difficulties.

You say "N of ship1 passes T of ship2 twice"

My question is: in which reference frame does N of ship1 pass T of ship 2 twice?

 

[Zeno]

Ship1 at rest on top:

       T--------------------N
<----- N----------T

Ship2 at rest at bottom:

T----------N ----->
N--------------------T

Here we have 2 ships passing each other and each diagram shows one of the ships at rest and the other one moving and length contracted. There is one moment when T of ship1 is lined up with N of ship2. This moment must be the same moment for both ship1 and ship2. If it isn't the same moment for both T of ship1 and N of ship2 then that means that T of ship1 is located somewhere else, according to ship1, when, according to ship2, T of ship1 is lined up with N of ship2, which means that T of ship1 has already passed or will pass N of ship2 so that is 2 events of T of ship1 passing N of ship2 which is clearly impossible. It also means that T of ship1 is simultaneously in 2 different places which is impossible. So this proves that the moment that T of ship1 and N of ship2 is lined up is the same moment in both the reference frame of ship1 and the reference frame of ship2. At this moment N of ship1 is located on opposite sides of T of ship2 simultaneously which is clearly impossible.

That's why you can't draw diagrams showing what happens without running into problems.

 

[exchemist]

And so it goes on, round and round, until eventually everyone gets bored with this trolling shit.

 

[James R]

Zeno,

Another year has gone by. What have you done in that time, as far as working through the posts in this thread and trying to understand and come up with responses to the explanations that were put to you previously? As far as I can tell, you have done nothing.

Is this just a once-yearly drive-by for you, then? Come in, post the same errors, fail to learn anything, then disappear for another year?

Worse, you've had more than 2 decades now since you first discovered special relativity. What have you learned in that time? Have you tried studying the mathematics of the theory, using any one of the many introductory texts on the topic? Have you consulted any of the many web sites, from which you can learn special relativity?

It doesn't look like you've done anything in 20 years to try to advance your knowledge of special relativity. Why is that?

Well, since such questions don't seem to register with you, here's this year's response to your errors, which is the same as last year's response, and the year before that. Not that I expect this to have any impact on you. Nothing else has, in 20 years.

Here we have 2 ships passing each other and each diagram shows one of the ships at rest and the other one moving and length contracted. There is one moment when T of ship1 is lined up with N of ship2. This moment must be the same moment for both ship1 and ship2.

Your words "the same moment" are weasel words, because you are aware we are dealing with two different frames of references.

You have been told that the time and space coordinates that observers in different reference frames assign to the same event can be, and usually are, different.

Specifically, the event "T of ship 1 is lined up with N of ship 2" is a single event in spacetime that has different time and space coordinates in the two reference frames (ship 1's frame and ship 2's frame).

So, the form of words you should have used is: "This event is the same event for both ship1 and ship2."

To talk about a "moment" being the same is just to talk about time in a vague way, while refusing to acknowledge that events in spacetime have both space and time coordinates, which vary when we move from one frame to another.

It also means that T of ship1 is simultaneously in 2 different places which is impossible.

As I previously explained to you at some length, "simultaneous" is only valid when comparing two events in the same reference frame.

You continue to want to use the term "simultaneous" to compare one event in two different references frames, or to compare two events in two different frames, neither of which makes any sense in special relativity.
----
If, after 20 years, you want to start being honest, you need to read back over all the posts to this thread and to try to respond honestly and fully to the questions and points that have been put to you.

I don't expect you will do this. A long history of your behaviour suggests that you are incapable of being honest, or unwilling to be. Nevertheless, since this has become a once-a-year kind of thing, it's still worth a try, I guess. People can change, sometimes. Can you?

 

[DaveC426913]

Zeno: do you understand what "relativity of simultaneity" means? Yes/No.