Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
in [Relativity]
|
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 2 Sep 2005 11:53 "Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:df9qvo0fju(a)drn.newsguy.com... > 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. Perhaps he should learn about coordinates of events. HE didn't want to take the medicine from me. Perhaps he will take it from you :-) The problem is that Thomas seems to be highly allergic to just about everything that could possibly help him understand that paper. I think he has adopted as his life motto the phrase "I Cannot And Will Not Understand That Paper" Enjoy ;-) Dirk Vdm
From: Harry on 2 Sep 2005 12:04 "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel(a)ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:G8_Re.184333$ZE2.10260569(a)phobos.telenet-ops.be... SNIP > which shows again, that the moderators have stopped doing > the job they used to do: [...]> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/3d6e51f30ecf1d6e [...]. > Dirk Vdm Thanks for pointing that one out - I look forward to see rebuttals. Can you back up your implicit claim that that message is wrong? I doubt that you were there... Harald
From: Thomas Smid on 2 Sep 2005 12:19 Daryl McCullough wrote: > 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) So how did he get then to (4) in your opinion? (Hint: he got to (3) using his equations (1) and (2)) Thomas
From: Daryl McCullough on 2 Sep 2005 12:13 Dirk Van de moortel says... >The problem is that Thomas seems to be highly allergic to >just about everything that could possibly help him understand >that paper. I think he has adopted as his life motto the phrase > "I Cannot And Will Not Understand That Paper" Which is exactly Androcles' attitude. I'm wondering if they might be the same person? You're the one with that kind of psychic power... -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 2 Sep 2005 12:40
"Thomas Smid" <thomas.smid(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1125677986.619007.318390(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Daryl McCullough wrote: > > 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) > > So how did he get then to (4) in your opinion? (Hint: he got to (3) > using his equations (1) and (2)) He got to x' - c t' = lambda ( x - c t ) using the assumption that equation x - c t = 0 linearly transforms to the equation x' - c t' = 0 He got to x' + c t' = mu ( x + c t ) using the assumption that equation x + c t = 0 linearly transforms to the equation x' + c t' = 0 I already told you, you haven't got a clue about linear algebra and analytic geometry :-) Dirk Vdm |