Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
in [Relativity]
|
From: Thomas Smid on 2 Sep 2005 10:45 Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > Specially since he seems to be able to control his > emotions, which is rarely given to mental cases. Which seems to be more than you can say apparently. But for everybody who wants ot discuss this topic on a more sober and constructive basis, I have posted this also on sci.physics.research under http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/9c227f472e419074?hl=en So feel free to join in there (you will have to control your emotions there though as it is moderated). Thomas
From: Thomas Smid on 2 Sep 2005 10:47 Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > Specially since he seems to be able to control his > emotions, which is rarely given to mental cases. Which seems to be more than you can say apparently. But for everybody who wants to discuss this topic on a more sober and constructive basis, I have posted this also on sci.physics.research under http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/9c227f472e419074?hl=en So feel free to join in there (you will have to control your emotions there though as it is moderated). Thomas
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 2 Sep 2005 11:04 <russell(a)mdli.com> wrote in message news:1125672180.801266.324320(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > 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? :-) Hehe, my image :-) No, I really wanted to see how his mind works and perhaps even help him out of his misery. We were doing quite well with the first string of points, until he suddenly jumped through the window when he noticed that I was somehow working towards - AAARG - the Omni-Feared Tau-Equation of section 3 of http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ and that Dreadfully Menacing Closing Velocity, and those Utterly Sickening Equations Of Motion, and worse of all, those Impossibly Nauseating Coordinates. I think we got too close to all of them at the same time. Pedagogical mistake of mine :-( > > I did like his x=1, x=0 business, too, btw. It's so ironic > in the context of this thread in particular. Sure is :-) I hope we haven't seen the last of him. Of course there's always the possibility that he is just faking it. Or perhaps faking that he is faking it, like Androcles sometimes does in some of his rare less insane periods. Dirk Vdm
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 2 Sep 2005 11:24 "Thomas Smid" <thomas.smid(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1125672474.824966.78790(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > > > Specially since he seems to be able to control his > > emotions, which is rarely given to mental cases. > > Which seems to be more than you can say apparently. > > But for everybody who wants to discuss this topic on a more sober and > constructive basis, I have posted this also on sci.physics.research > under > http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/9c227f472e419074?hl=en > > > So feel free to join in there (you will have to control your emotions > there though as it is moderated). which shows again, that the moderators have stopped doing the job they used to do: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/b21a56e274d1e6c3 http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/3d6e51f30ecf1d6e http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/c27dd582130512fd The place seems to be flooded by *our* Village Idiots lately. Dirk Vdm
From: Daryl McCullough on 2 Sep 2005 11:26
Thomas Smid says... > >Daryl McCullough wrote: > >> You can't subtract (1) from (3), since x in (1) refers >> to a *different* event than the x in (3). It's not the >> same value of x, and it's not the same value of t. >> Think about it in terms of a *car* driving down a >> road that runs East-West at 10 meters/second. > >Don't blame me for it. I am merely reproducing Einstein's >derivation at http://www.bartleby.com/173/a1.html here. Yes, I blame you for it. Einstein didn't subtract x = ct from x = -ct To get 0 = 2ct You did. If you didn't understand Einstein's derivation, you can ask about it, but don't make up your *own* derivation and then blame its mistakes on *Einstein*. Either stand up for your own derivation (take the blame if it is wrong), or else use Einstein's derivation. Einstein's equations were these (3) x' - ct' = lambda (x-ct) (4) x' + ct' = mu (x+ct) He assumed that these relationships *always* hold, for *all* events, for *all* values of x and t. If it is always the case that x' - ct' = lambda (x-ct), and it is always the case that x' + ct' = mu (x+ct), then it will always be the case that x' = 1/2 (lambda + mu) x - 1/2 (lambda - mu) ct ct' = 1/2 (lambda + mu) ct - 1/2 (lambda - mu) x In contrast, the equation x = ct doesn't always hold. It only holds when x is the location of a light signal at time t that happens to be travelling in the x direction, and leaves the origin at time t=0. The equation x = -ct only holds when x is the location of a light signal at time t that happens to be travelling in the -x direction, and leaves the origin at time t=0. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY |