Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
in [Relativity]
|
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 2 Sep 2005 10:11 "Thomas Smid" <thomas.smid(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1125668334.858728.303300(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > > > Combining the equations like he did (algebraicly "solving a system > > of two equations with two unknowns") is the analytic geometry > > equivalent of finding the interesection between the light paths: > > { x - c t = 0 > > { x + c t = 0 > > ==> > > { 2 c t = 0 > > { x - c t = 0 > > ==> > > { t = 0 > > { x = 0 > > So the intersection of the signals happens at time t = 0 at > > distance x = 0. > > Dirk, I am sorry to say you have a flawed understanding of maths. These > two equations are *only* valid at x=0 and t=0, so they can not possibly > describe light paths. According to your 'method' you might as well > conclude from the two equations > (1) x=1 > (2) x=0 > and by inserting (1) into (2) that > (3) 1=0 > > Thomas Title: "You have a flawed understanding of maths" http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/WrongMath.html Brilliant again, specially when we take this one into account: http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MScPhD.html Whether you do this on purpose or not, it's nice. Dirk Vdm
From: russell on 2 Sep 2005 10:17 Dirk Van de moortel wrote: [snip] > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MScPhD.html Seriously? Oh dear. At least the engineers can rest easy this time. This Smid is a piece of work, eh?
From: Bilge on 2 Sep 2005 10:25 Thomas Smid: >Many people maintain that the Lorentz transformation is derived >mathematically consistently and that there is therefore no way to >challenge SR on internal consistency issues. Is this really so? Yes. It's really so. Lorentz boosts and spatial rotations are obtained in the same derivation. If the lorentz transforms are mathematically inconsistent, then so is euclidean geometry. I trust you haven't disproved the pythagorean theorem, since disproving the pythagoren theorem would be big news and a ticket to fame. Do you believe the coordinate transformation, x' = x cos(A) - y sin(A) y' = y cos(A) + x sin(A) is mathematically inconsistent? If not, then your argument against the transformation, t' = t cosh(A) - x sinh(A) x' = x cosh(A) - t sinh(A) is inconsistent.
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 2 Sep 2005 10:29 <russell(a)mdli.com> wrote in message news:1125670631.360890.195870(a)g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > > [snip] > > > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MScPhD.html > > Seriously? Oh dear. > > At least the engineers can rest easy this time. > > This Smid is a piece of work, eh? Just incredible. If he is genuine, I think he's one of our finest assets. Specially since he seems to be able to control his emotions, which is rarely given to mental cases. But you can't say I didn't give him a (more than) fair chance, can you? Dirk Vdm
From: russell on 2 Sep 2005 10:43
Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > <russell(a)mdli.com> wrote in message news:1125670631.360890.195870(a)g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MScPhD.html > > > > Seriously? Oh dear. > > > > At least the engineers can rest easy this time. > > > > This Smid is a piece of work, eh? > > Just incredible. If he is genuine, I think he's one of our finest > assets. Specially since he seems to be able to control his > emotions, which is rarely given to mental cases. > > But you can't say I didn't give him a (more than) fair chance, > can you? Indeed, you were uncharacteristically restrained. Are you trying to change your image? :-) I did like his x=1, x=0 business, too, btw. It's so ironic in the context of this thread in particular. |