Basic postulates of SR
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: curvature of spacetime
Next: Hard SR questions?
From: Paul B. Andersen on 7 Aug 2006 08:46 Sergey Karavashkin wrote: > Paul B. Andersen ?????(?): > >> Sergey Karavashkin wrote: >>> Dear Colleagues, >>> >>> Today we are pleased to draw your attention to our new paper >>> >>> " On correctness of basic postulates of SR " >>> > .......... >> I think the following passus from the paper illustrates it's quality: >> >> begin quote << >> But if in each frame at the moment of meeting and exchange of time codes >> the observer detects that in another frame the time goes slower and in >> the same proportion, then in both frames time goes same and proportionality >> factor is 1. We can easily prove it. If from the point of stationary observer >> the time interval in the moving frame is >> >> delta_t' = k delta_t (7) >> >> and from the point of moving observer it is >> >> delta_t = k delta_t' (8) >> >> and both time intervals are real (not imaginary) in each frame, >> then, joining (7) and (8), yield >> >> delta_t = k^2 delta_t (9) >> >> from which it immediately follows >> >> k = 1 (10) >> >> If we disprove (10), we have to admit that in some frame the time >> really contracts and in another does not, which violates the equivalence >> of frames. >> >> end quote >> >> Enough said. >> >> Paul > > > If you, Paul, cannot analyse papers, say it frankly. These formulas > touch a narrow aspect concerned to the Einsteinian contraction. Are you > stating that Einstein’s expression > > Deltat’ = Deltat sqrt (1-(v/c)^2) > > is incorrect? :-) > > My formulas which you cited expected an aware reader, so > > k = sqrt (1-(v/c)^2) > > Have you any claims to the full equivalence of inertial frames? Have > you claims to the logic of these formulas? Do you want to say, (10) > does not follow from the equal transformation ahead and back? t' = (t - xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) (I) x' = (x - vt)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) t = (t' + x'v/c^2)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) (II) x = (x' + vt')/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) Equation set I and II are the same transform written in two alternative forms. I is the inverse of II and vice versa. From I we get: (@ partial differential operator) @t'/@t = 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) or, if you like, @t = @t' (1-(v/c)^2) From II we get: @t/@t' = 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) or, if you like, @t' = @t (1-(v/c)^2) Does that imply that (1-(v/c)^2) = 1 and thus v = 0? :-) You are not the first to make this blunder, and will not be the last. Dingle did it half a century ago, and it has since been repeated over and over ad nauseam. http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/29/Famous_Errors.pdf > Then you > would have to read further, after these formulas, as we substantiated > this all. And re-read the section 3 of Einsteinian “On > electrodynamics of moving bodies” of 1905 where we introduced the > third frame moving opposite to the second and, basing on the product of > two coefficients, concluded the equality of these coefficients to 1. > > I would add, in this our paper not the formulas are main. We showed an > absurd of Lorentz transformation, and we built this all strongly on the > Einsteinian formalism. Otherwise would you kindly point, what namely of > Einsteinian formalism did not we account in plotting the Minkowski > diagrams? If you do not point it either if you pass to expressions a la > dda1, this will show your level which you are trying to attribute to > others. :) > > By the way, to cite here the formula (10), you had to read the > preceding part of our paper. As far as I can see, you had no claims to > this part. So you automatically admitted physically illegal the > Einsteinian postulate of light speed constancy. And the main, you > admitted that Einstein has substituted the concept of light speed > constancy in the Maxwell theory. What can you tell me after it? Of > correctness of what? You showed your level, omitting this all without > arguments. And you did not catch the level of our work, as you did not > read the analysis of dynamical Minkowski diagram in the moving frame. > Could you point me to some authors or web sites who would demonstrate > the Minkowski dynamical diagrams? And you omitted silently the analysis > of Born’s representation with his absurd graph which we showed. In > this graph the observer resting with respect to the moving frame moves > in perpendicular to the axis x’. In the oblique-angled coordinate > system? If speaking of nonsense, this our paper is targeted to debunk > the nonsense of Relativity. And if someone sees some nonsense in this > paper, he can claim to no one else but to Relativity. > > Sergey > I have "automatically admitted" nothing. All I said was that the quoted extract from your paper demonstrates its quality. Paul
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 7 Aug 2006 12:55 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message news:eb7co1$fep$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... > Sergey Karavashkin wrote: >> Paul B. Andersen ?????(?): >> >>> Sergey Karavashkin wrote: >>>> Dear Colleagues, >>>> >>>> Today we are pleased to draw your attention to our new paper >>>> >>>> " On correctness of basic postulates of SR " >>>> >> .......... >>> I think the following passus from the paper illustrates it's quality: >>> >>> begin quote << >>> But if in each frame at the moment of meeting and exchange of time codes >>> the observer detects that in another frame the time goes slower and in >>> the same proportion, then in both frames time goes same and proportionality >>> factor is 1. We can easily prove it. If from the point of stationary observer >>> the time interval in the moving frame is >>> >>> delta_t' = k delta_t (7) >>> >>> and from the point of moving observer it is >>> >>> delta_t = k delta_t' (8) >>> >>> and both time intervals are real (not imaginary) in each frame, >>> then, joining (7) and (8), yield >>> >>> delta_t = k^2 delta_t (9) >>> >>> from which it immediately follows >>> >>> k = 1 (10) >>> >>> If we disprove (10), we have to admit that in some frame the time >>> really contracts and in another does not, which violates the equivalence >>> of frames. >>> >> end quote >>> >>> Enough said. >>> >>> Paul >> >> >> If you, Paul, cannot analyse papers, say it frankly. These formulas >> touch a narrow aspect concerned to the Einsteinian contraction. Are you >> stating that Einstein's expression >> >> Deltat' = Deltat sqrt (1-(v/c)^2) >> >> is incorrect? :-) >> >> My formulas which you cited expected an aware reader, so >> >> k = sqrt (1-(v/c)^2) >> >> Have you any claims to the full equivalence of inertial frames? Have >> you claims to the logic of these formulas? Do you want to say, (10) >> does not follow from the equal transformation ahead and back? > > t' = (t - xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) (I) > x' = (x - vt)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) > > t = (t' + x'v/c^2)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) (II) > x = (x' + vt')/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) > > Equation set I and II are the same transform > written in two alternative forms. > I is the inverse of II and vice versa. > > From I we get: (@ partial differential operator) > @t'/@t = 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) > or, if you like, @t = @t' (1-(v/c)^2) > > From II we get: > @t/@t' = 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) > or, if you like, @t' = @t (1-(v/c)^2) > > Does that imply that (1-(v/c)^2) = 1 and thus v = 0? :-) > > You are not the first to make this blunder, and will not be the last. > Dingle did it half a century ago, and it has since been repeated > over and over ad nauseam. > > http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/29/Famous_Errors.pdf See also http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff2.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff3.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff4.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NotFxy.html for the prettiest instance of it ;-) Dirk Vdm
From: Sergey Karavashkin on 7 Aug 2006 14:05 Dirk Van de moortel пиÑ?ал(а): > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message news:eb7co1$fep$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... > > Sergey Karavashkin wrote: > >> Paul B. Andersen ?????(?): > >> > >>> Sergey Karavashkin wrote: > >>>> Dear Colleagues, > >>>> > >>>> Today we are pleased to draw your attention to our new paper > >>>> > >>>> " On correctness of basic postulates of SR " > >>>> > >> .......... > >>> I think the following passus from the paper illustrates it's quality: > >>> > >>> begin quote << > >>> But if in each frame at the moment of meeting and exchange of time codes > >>> the observer detects that in another frame the time goes slower and in > >>> the same proportion, then in both frames time goes same and proportionality > >>> factor is 1. We can easily prove it. If from the point of stationary observer > >>> the time interval in the moving frame is > >>> > >>> delta_t' = k delta_t (7) > >>> > >>> and from the point of moving observer it is > >>> > >>> delta_t = k delta_t' (8) > >>> > >>> and both time intervals are real (not imaginary) in each frame, > >>> then, joining (7) and (8), yield > >>> > >>> delta_t = k^2 delta_t (9) > >>> > >>> from which it immediately follows > >>> > >>> k = 1 (10) > >>> > >>> If we disprove (10), we have to admit that in some frame the time > >>> really contracts and in another does not, which violates the equivalence > >>> of frames. > >>> >> end quote > >>> > >>> Enough said. > >>> > >>> Paul > >> > >> > >> If you, Paul, cannot analyse papers, say it frankly. These formulas > >> touch a narrow aspect concerned to the Einsteinian contraction. Are you > >> stating that Einstein's expression > >> > >> Deltat' = Deltat sqrt (1-(v/c)^2) > >> > >> is incorrect? :-) > >> > >> My formulas which you cited expected an aware reader, so > >> > >> k = sqrt (1-(v/c)^2) > >> > >> Have you any claims to the full equivalence of inertial frames? Have > >> you claims to the logic of these formulas? Do you want to say, (10) > >> does not follow from the equal transformation ahead and back? > > > > t' = (t - xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) (I) > > x' = (x - vt)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) > > > > t = (t' + x'v/c^2)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) (II) > > x = (x' + vt')/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) > > > > Equation set I and II are the same transform > > written in two alternative forms. > > I is the inverse of II and vice versa. > > > > From I we get: (@ partial differential operator) > > @t'/@t = 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) > > or, if you like, @t = @t' (1-(v/c)^2) > > > > From II we get: > > @t/@t' = 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) > > or, if you like, @t' = @t (1-(v/c)^2) > > > > Does that imply that (1-(v/c)^2) = 1 and thus v = 0? :-) > > > > You are not the first to make this blunder, and will not be the last. > > Dingle did it half a century ago, and it has since been repeated > > over and over ad nauseam. > > > > http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/29/Famous_Errors.pdf > > See also > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff2.html > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff3.html > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff4.html > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NotFxy.html > for the prettiest instance of it ;-) > > Dirk Vdm Sit in your 'idiot village' and don't crawl out of it.
From: Tom Roberts on 7 Aug 2006 23:20 Harry wrote: > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:V80Bg.4398$gY6.3733(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... >> Sergey Karavashkin wrote: >>> We will study the basic postulates of special theory of relativity: the >>> postulate of constant speed of light in all reference frames [...] >>> Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>that is not at all a postulate of SR. <shrug> >>> It was Einstein himself who has >>> introduced the term "L-postulate". >> I repeat: anyone who can READ would avoid your error. Just go back and >> actually READ Einstein's 1905 paper. He does not use what you claim is a >> postulate, he formulates his postulate in a significantly different way. >> <shrug> > > Although I tend to agree with you on this point, a number of physicists > happen to disagree and read it roughly the way Sergey reads it. It's > ambiguous for sure. This is not ambiguous in the least. Einstein's second postulate is significantly different from what Sergey claimed above. There is absolutely no doubt: 2. Jeder Lichtstrahl bewegt sich im <<ruhenden>> Koordinatensystem mit der bestimmten Geschwindigkeit V, unabhaengig davon, ob dieser Lichtstrahl von einem ruhenden oder bewegten Koerper emittiert ist. -- A. Einstein, Ann. d. Physik, 4.17, p891-921 (1905). In English: 2. Every light ray moves with the precise speed c relative to the "stationary" coordinate system, independent of whether the ray is emitted by a stationary or moving source. [translation mine, using modern terminology. Note that earlier in the paper he defined "stationary system" as any specific inertial frame (again, I'm using modern terminology here).] Nobody who actually reads Einstein's paper will claim that Einstein's second postulate is anything at all like Sergey claimed above. <shrug> I'm not talking about the subtleties of translation (e.g. in this usage is "bestimmten" best translated as "determined", "definite", "certain", or "precise"?). I mean the basic content of the postulate. Yes, numerous textbooks use alternate derivations of the equations of SR, including significantly different statements of the second postulate. That does not change what Einstein actually wrote. As for any mathematical theory, there are many different sets of postulates that lead to the same theory. But if, as Sergey said, "We will study the basic postulates of special theory of relativity", then it is necessary to get them right. Accurate scholarship IS important. <shrug> Tom Roberts
From: rambus2005 on 8 Aug 2006 03:28
Tom Roberts wrote: > Harry wrote: > > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > > news:V80Bg.4398$gY6.3733(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... > >> Sergey Karavashkin wrote: > >>> We will study the basic postulates of special theory of relativity: the > >>> postulate of constant speed of light in all reference frames [...] > >>> Tom Roberts wrote: > >>>>that is not at all a postulate of SR. <shrug> > >>> It was Einstein himself who has > >>> introduced the term "L-postulate". > >> I repeat: anyone who can READ would avoid your error. Just go back and > >> actually READ Einstein's 1905 paper. He does not use what you claim is a > >> postulate, he formulates his postulate in a significantly different way. > >> <shrug> > > > > Although I tend to agree with you on this point, a number of physicists > > happen to disagree and read it roughly the way Sergey reads it. It's > > ambiguous for sure. > > This is not ambiguous in the least. Einstein's second postulate is > significantly different from what Sergey claimed above. There is > absolutely no doubt: > > 2. Jeder Lichtstrahl bewegt sich im <<ruhenden>> Koordinatensystem > mit der bestimmten Geschwindigkeit V, unabhaengig davon, ob dieser > Lichtstrahl von einem ruhenden oder bewegten Koerper emittiert ist. > -- A. Einstein, Ann. d. Physik, 4.17, p891-921 (1905). > > In English: > > 2. Every light ray moves with the precise speed c relative to the > "stationary" coordinate system, independent of whether the ray is > emitted by a stationary or moving source. > [translation mine, using modern terminology. Note that earlier > in the paper he defined "stationary system" as any specific > inertial frame (again, I'm using modern terminology here).] > > Nobody who actually reads Einstein's paper will claim that Einstein's > second postulate is anything at all like Sergey claimed above. <shrug> > > I'm not talking about the subtleties of translation (e.g. > in this usage is "bestimmten" best translated as > "determined", "definite", "certain", or "precise"?). > I mean the basic content of the postulate. > > Yes, numerous textbooks use alternate derivations of the equations of > SR, including significantly different statements of the second > postulate. That does not change what Einstein actually wrote. As for any > mathematical theory, there are many different sets of postulates that > lead to the same theory. But if, as Sergey said, "We will study the > basic postulates of special theory of relativity", then it is necessary > to get them right. Accurate scholarship IS important. <shrug> > > > Tom Roberts Tom, I think that you guys are wasting your time by taking this joker seriusly. He has a long history of idiotic papers, I think DirkVan can give you a "reference" on him. He's the mathematician who claims that he has proof that curl(grad(f)) is sometimes not zero. |