Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
in [Relativity]
|
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 14 Sep 2005 10:23 "Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:dg97rq0nag(a)drn.newsguy.com... > Dirk Van de moortel says... > > > Deliberately writing something completely wrong in order > > to annoy someone, isn't really making a mistake. It's more > > like lying and deceiving, don't you agree? > > I don't know about that explanation. It seems to give > Thomas too much credit to assume that he *understands* > his errors, but is making them intentionally in order > to win some argument. I don't see any evidence of such > understanding. But maybe that's part of his > deviousness---that he carefully hides his own understanding? Yes, that is what I would bet on, but his understanding is pretty shallow to begin with. See below. > > The question is: what possible motivation could someone > have to lie about the Lorentz transformations? Are you > thinking that some people (Thomas and maybe Androcles) > actually know that Einstein's derivations were correct, > but are trying to cast doubt on them anyway? I think they don't understand the physics behind the transformations, nor the basic linear algebra that lies at the heart of the derivations in the literature. For some reason Thomas pretends not to understand the most elementary algebra either - but I'm pretty confident he *does* understand. He even understands basic analytic geometry, but consistently refuses to use it. Again he pretends not to understand it. Androcles doesn't even have to take the trouble to pretend. He is much too stupid. Sometimes he tries to pretend that he is pretending - and even that he can't do properly. But you ask a pertinent quesiton: could they actually know that Einstein's and other's derivations are correct? Since they obviously lack the background to really *know*, I think the asnwer is no, but maybe deep down they have some eerie doubts. But perhaps I'm naively optimistic. > > Okay, I guess I have a hypothesis as to what may ge > going on, that's almost the same as your dishonesty > hypothesis, but doesn't credit them with understanding. > > Thomas and Androcles and the other relativity-bashers > *sincerely* believe that relativity is wrong, and that > there is something wrong with Einstein's derivation. I think I'm slightly more optimistic than you about their "intelligence" and less optimistic about their honesty. > However, they also know that they don't have the energy > or mathematical ability to figure out exactly where the > mistake is. But they reason: It doesn't matter exactly > what the mistake is---if it's mistaken, then people > shouldn't be using relativity. Yes, so much is clear - specially in Androcles' case. > > So, in the spirit of "The ends justify the means" they > are using methods that they know are incorrect to try > to convince people of a *correct* (to them, anyway) > conclusion: that relativity is nonsense. If the conclusion > is correct, who cares about the picky details? I would add two words to this: "... to convince people of an *almost certainly correct* (to them, anyway) conclusion that relativity is nonsense." Very interesting indeed. Cheers, Dirk Vdm > > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY >
From: Thomas Smid on 14 Sep 2005 12:21 Daryl McCullough wrote: > Dirk Van de moortel says... > > >Deliberately writing something completely wrong in order > >to annoy someone, isn't really making a mistake. It's more > >like lying and deceiving, don't you agree? > > I don't know about that explanation. It seems to give > Thomas too much credit to assume that he *understands* > his errors, but is making them intentionally in order > to win some argument. I don't see any evidence of such > understanding. But maybe that's part of his > deviousness---that he carefully hides his own understanding? > > The question is: what possible motivation could someone > have to lie about the Lorentz transformations? Are you > thinking that some people (Thomas and maybe Androcles) > actually know that Einstein's derivations were correct, > but are trying to cast doubt on them anyway? > > Okay, I guess I have a hypothesis as to what may ge > going on, that's almost the same as your dishonesty > hypothesis, but doesn't credit them with understanding. > > Thomas and Androcles and the other relativity-bashers > *sincerely* believe that relativity is wrong, and that > there is something wrong with Einstein's derivation. > However, they also know that they don't have the energy > or mathematical ability to figure out exactly where the > mistake is. But they reason: It doesn't matter exactly > what the mistake is---if it's mistaken, then people > shouldn't be using relativity. > > So, in the spirit of "The ends justify the means" they > are using methods that they know are incorrect to try > to convince people of a *correct* (to them, anyway) > conclusion: that relativity is nonsense. If the conclusion > is correct, who cares about the picky details? Daryl, you again haven't responded at all to the algebraic arguments given. All you are doing is ignoring them on the grounds of some arguments that you believe to be true because you have been indoctrinated with them for years. You seem to be unable or unwilling to discuss the derivation of the Lorentz transformation without making assumptions that already *imply* that it is consistent and that its consequences can be taken for granted. Obviously, in this situation there is no point in continuing this discussion. Thomas
From: Thomas Smid on 14 Sep 2005 12:28 Daryl McCullough wrote: > Thomas Smid says... > > >I have algebraically proved above that it is true > > Every single one of your proofs starts off with an > error. You can *see* that it is an error by checking > your work. You claim to have proved that B=0 is the > only solution to the equations > > 1. forall x, forall t, x'(x,t) = A x + Bc t > 2. forall x, forall t, ct'(x,t) = D x + Ec t > 3. forall x, forall t, if x=ct, then x'(x,t) = c t'(x,t) > 4. forall x, forall t, if x=-ct, then x'(x,t) = -c t'(x,t) > > You can *see* that that is incorrect by trying > the solution A=5/3 B=-4/3 D=-4/3 E=5/3. If you > prove something that is false, then that is > evidence that you made a mistake. I explicitly > pointed out what your mistake was, but you > don't need me to point it out in order for you > to admit that you made a mistake: > > You proved that B=0 was the only solution. > B=0 is *not* the only solution. > Therefore, your proof is wrong. > > That is the simplest, and most airtight rule > for mathematics. If you prove something that > turns out to be false, then you've made a mistake. > You proved something that turned out to be false. > Therefore, you made a mistake. Daryl, you again haven't responded at all to the algebraic arguments given. All you are doing is ignoring them on the grounds of some arguments that you believe to be true because you have been indoctrinated with them for years. You seem to be unable or unwilling to discuss the derivation of the Lorentz transformation without making assumptions that already *imply* that it is consistent and that its consequences can be taken for granted. Obviously, in this situation there is no point in continuing this discussion. Thomas
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 14 Sep 2005 12:32 "Thomas Smid" <thomas.smid(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1126714898.210451.83570(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Daryl McCullough wrote: > > Dirk Van de moortel says... > > > > >Deliberately writing something completely wrong in order > > >to annoy someone, isn't really making a mistake. It's more > > >like lying and deceiving, don't you agree? > > > > I don't know about that explanation. It seems to give > > Thomas too much credit to assume that he *understands* > > his errors, but is making them intentionally in order > > to win some argument. I don't see any evidence of such > > understanding. But maybe that's part of his > > deviousness---that he carefully hides his own understanding? > > > > The question is: what possible motivation could someone > > have to lie about the Lorentz transformations? Are you > > thinking that some people (Thomas and maybe Androcles) > > actually know that Einstein's derivations were correct, > > but are trying to cast doubt on them anyway? > > > > Okay, I guess I have a hypothesis as to what may ge > > going on, that's almost the same as your dishonesty > > hypothesis, but doesn't credit them with understanding. > > > > Thomas and Androcles and the other relativity-bashers > > *sincerely* believe that relativity is wrong, and that > > there is something wrong with Einstein's derivation. > > However, they also know that they don't have the energy > > or mathematical ability to figure out exactly where the > > mistake is. But they reason: It doesn't matter exactly > > what the mistake is---if it's mistaken, then people > > shouldn't be using relativity. > > > > So, in the spirit of "The ends justify the means" they > > are using methods that they know are incorrect to try > > to convince people of a *correct* (to them, anyway) > > conclusion: that relativity is nonsense. If the conclusion > > is correct, who cares about the picky details? > > Daryl, you again haven't responded at all to the algebraic arguments > given. All you are doing is ignoring them on the grounds of some > arguments that you believe to be true because you have been > indoctrinated with them for years. You seem to be unable or unwilling > to discuss the derivation of the Lorentz transformation without making > assumptions that already *imply* that it is consistent and that its > consequences can be taken for granted. Obviously, in this situation > there is no point in continuing this discussion. What makes you think that this is a discussion? This is Applied Village Idiot Psychology. Google for it with keyword AVIP. Dirk Vdm
From: Daryl McCullough on 14 Sep 2005 13:52
Thomas Smid says... >> 1. forall x, forall t, x'(x,t) = A x + Bc t >> 2. forall x, forall t, ct'(x,t) = D x + Ec t >> 3. forall x, forall t, if x=ct, then x'(x,t) = c t'(x,t) >> 4. forall x, forall t, if x=-ct, then x'(x,t) = -c t'(x,t) >Daryl, you again haven't responded at all to the algebraic arguments >given. I have proved that your algebraic arguments are incorrect, in the following way: (1) Equations 1-4 above have a solution A=5/3, B=-4/3, D=-4/3, E=5/3 (2) You claim to have proved that the only solution is B=0. Your algebraic arguments proved something that is demonstrably false. Therefore, your arguments are incorrect. That's airtight. >All you are doing is ignoring them on the grounds of some >arguments that you believe to be true You can check for yourself that A=5/3, B=-4/3, D=-4/3, E=5/3 is a solution to equations 1-4. So it's not just a matter of belief. The first rule of mathematics is: check your work. If you prove something which is demonstrably false, then there is something wrong with your proof. You proved that the only solution is B=0. I gave you a solution with B = -4/3. Clearly, your proof was wrong. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY |