relativity vs velocity addition
in [Relativity]
|
From: Mike on 14 Dec 2006 11:13 Sylvia Else wrote: > lkoluk2003(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > Hi, > > Although the symmetric twin paradox can be explaied by ALT(Aether > > theory with Lorentz Transformations) , I am a relativist. So after I > > was sure SR(special relativity) is incorrect, I started to search > > explanation(s) of the paradox in a relativist way. According to me the > > starting point ought to be the velocity addition rule, because every > > huge leap in physics is achieved by understanding the secrets of > > velocity. Galileo set up a new phsics by the concepts of inertia and > > independence of velocities in different axes(vector addition). SR and > > GR(General Relativity) is also set up by claiming the velocity > > additition rule is not a simple algebraic sum. I don't try it, but it > > seems that the lorentz transformations can be derived from the velocity > > addition rule which is (v+w)/(1+vw/c^2) if v and w have the same > > direction. Now I will try to show that if relativity principle(i.e. if > > there is no absolute inertial frame) is true, then the speed of light > > must be a constant relative to the source. > > > > Let there are two platforms A and B and within each platform there are > > two observers Oa and Ob respectively. Let the platforms are two trains > > and Ob is in the middle of the train B with a detector D. On each of > > the two far sides of the train there is a clock and a light source. > > When the clock ticks a predefined times, the light source fires a light > > beam such that it will hit the detector on the middle of the train. > > I.e. the light source Sf fires light beam from left to right and Sb > > fires in opposite direction as shown in the following. > > > > ------------------ > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > | | | Sf --------> D > > <--------- Sb | > > | Oa | | Cf Ob > > Cb | > > ------------------ > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Train A Train B -----> > > x axis > > > > The distance between each light source and detector D is the same. > > Detector gives two results: the two light beams hit at the same time > > or in different times. > > > > My postulates are the followings: > > > > 1. The experiments within a train does not affected by the outside > > objects which have a constant speed relative to it. > > 2. The speed of light is direction independent within a train. > > > > > > Experiment1: > > Synchronize the clocks and set up such that the light sources will be > > fired after n ticks. So they will fire at the same time according to > > observer Ob. The relative speed of trains A and B is zero. So the same > > thing is true for observer Oa. Of course , from the Ob's reference > > frame the two lights must hit the detector at the same time with the > > given postulates. This is the same for Oa. > > > > Experiment2: > > Synchronize the clocks and set up such that the light sources will be > > fired after n ticks. Place the clocks and light sources on the two far > > sides of the train B as mentioned. The relative speed of trains A and > > B is zero. So the clocks are synchronized according to both Oa and Ob. > > Now let train B accelerates and reach a constant speed v relative to > > train A after a while along the x axis. Then wait for the experiment > > to be completed. According to Ob the experiment gives the same result. > > I.e. the lights hit at the same time. Now examine what Oa see with the > > assumption that the speed of light is always the same according to the > > observer. > > > >>From Ob's reference frame: The clocks are still synchronized since they > > share the same movement and so get the same affects. So the two light > > beams are fired at the same time. The speed of the light train fired > > from Sf is c and from Sb is -c. Still the distance between Sf and D is > > the same with the distance between Sb and D although they are shorter > > now. Let this distance be x. So, the travel time of the light beam > > fired from Sf would be x/(c-v) and the travel time of the light beam > > fired from Sb would be x/(c+v). Since v is greater than zero these > > times are not equal and Oa predicts a different result from that of Ob. > > So relativity principle conflicts with the postulate that the speed of > > light is always the same according to the observer. > > > > Actually what above experiments show that if the relativity principle > > is true and the speed of light is direction independent, then the speed > > of light is direction independent relative to the source. Since the > > direction independence of light speed is a proven fact(Michael&Morley > > experiment and others), any theory conflicts with this also conflicts > > with relativity principle. This means that the Lorentzian velocity > > addition law conflicts with relativity principle. > > > > Lokman Kolukisa > > > > The Lorentz transformations just describe rotations in a four > dimensional space. As such, they are known to be mathematically self > consistent. It follows that regardless of whether SR is a correct > discription of reality, before you troll, learn the difference between a model of reality and a description of reality. SR cannot be a description of reality because 4-D spacetime is unobservable. > it cannot be invalidated by thought experiments > which seek to demonstrate internal contradictions. The twin paradox demonsrates an internal contradiction in SR as Einstein himslef admitted. You continue trolling., > > So why do people keep trying? Every such attempt that is posted here > constitutes nothing more than a request for an explanation of where the > poster has got his or her maths wrong. Where is your math? I would be surprised if you can present a VALID derivation of Lorentz tranfrom. Go ahead, make my day. > > That's what schools are for. > > Who'd have thought that a group on relativity could be so tedius? You want to know had is tedious? LEARN: Axioms of SR: (See for example: http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/postulate.html ) 1. Space-time is a 4-D continuum --- fails verification (and common sense) 2. There are globally inertial reference frames - fails verification 3. POR ( Principle of Relativity - An epistemological principle that fails verification) 4. Constancy of speed of light is all inertial FoR - fails verification (and common sense) How tedius that was? Mike > > Sylvia.
From: PD on 14 Dec 2006 13:02 On Dec 14, 10:13 am, "Mike" <elea...(a)yahoo.gr> wrote: > > The Lorentz transformations just describe rotations in a four > > dimensional space. As such, they are known to be mathematically self > > consistent. It follows that regardless of whether SR is a correct > > discription of reality,before you troll, learn the difference between a model of reality and a > description of reality. SR cannot be a description of reality because > 4-D spacetime is unobservable. > > > it cannot be invalidated by thought experiments > > which seek to demonstrate internal contradictions.The twin paradox demonsrates an internal contradiction in SR as > Einstein himslef admitted. You continue trolling., > > > > > So why do people keep trying? Every such attempt that is posted here > > constitutes nothing more than a request for an explanation of where the > > poster has got his or her maths wrong.Where is your math? I would be surprised if you can present a VALID > derivation of Lorentz tranfrom. Go ahead, make my day. > > > > > That's what schools are for. > > > Who'd have thought that a group on relativity could be so tedius?You want to know had is tedious? LEARN: > > Axioms of SR: > > (See for example:http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/postulate.html) > > 1. Space-time is a 4-D continuum --- fails verification (and common > sense) > > 2. There are globally inertial reference frames - fails verification > > 3. POR ( Principle of Relativity - An epistemological principle that > fails verification) > > 4. Constancy of speed of light is all inertial FoR - fails verification > (and common sense) > > How tedius that was? > > Mike > By your terms, Mike, 3D space is not a description of reality because it is not observable, either. And Newton's First Law is not a good model for reality, because there is no object on which there is zero net force. PD
From: Sorcerer on 14 Dec 2006 13:12 "PD" <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1166119343.057422.178180(a)n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... | | | On Dec 14, 10:13 am, "Mike" <elea...(a)yahoo.gr> wrote: | | > > The Lorentz transformations just describe rotations in a four | > > dimensional space. As such, they are known to be mathematically self | > > consistent. It follows that regardless of whether SR is a correct | > > discription of reality,before you troll, learn the difference between a model of reality and a | > description of reality. SR cannot be a description of reality because | > 4-D spacetime is unobservable. | > | > > it cannot be invalidated by thought experiments | > > which seek to demonstrate internal contradictions.The twin paradox demonsrates an internal contradiction in SR as | > Einstein himslef admitted. You continue trolling., | > | > | > | > > So why do people keep trying? Every such attempt that is posted here | > > constitutes nothing more than a request for an explanation of where the | > > poster has got his or her maths wrong.Where is your math? I would be surprised if you can present a VALID | > derivation of Lorentz tranfrom. Go ahead, make my day. | > | > | > | > > That's what schools are for. | > | > > Who'd have thought that a group on relativity could be so tedius?You want to know had is tedious? LEARN: | > | > Axioms of SR: | > | > (See for example:http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/postulate.html) | > | > 1. Space-time is a 4-D continuum --- fails verification (and common | > sense) | > | > 2. There are globally inertial reference frames - fails verification | > | > 3. POR ( Principle of Relativity - An epistemological principle that | > fails verification) | > | > 4. Constancy of speed of light is all inertial FoR - fails verification | > (and common sense) | > | > How tedius that was? | > | > Mike | > | | By your terms, Mike, 3D space is not a description of reality because | it is not observable, either. | | And Newton's First Law is not a good model for reality, because there | is no object on which there is zero net force. | | PD | SR is strictly valid only in a flat Lorentzian manifold with the | topology of R^4. This of course is a very poor model of the world we | inhabit. | | But physics is not math, and we often use approximations. SR is | approximately valid when the curvature of the manifold is negligible | over the region of interest compared to one's measurement accuracy. That | is, if gravity is negligible (or compensated for), SR can probably be | used. news:7hQah.16667$6t.3934(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com Otherwise we'll Newton's laws. Androcles
From: jamesahart79 on 14 Dec 2006 15:03 Mike wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: > > lkoluk2003(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > Hi, > > > Although the symmetric twin paradox can be explaied by ALT(Aether > > > theory with Lorentz Transformations) , I am a relativist. So after I > > > was sure SR(special relativity) is incorrect, I started to search > > > explanation(s) of the paradox in a relativist way. According to me the > > > starting point ought to be the velocity addition rule, because every > > > huge leap in physics is achieved by understanding the secrets of > > > velocity. Galileo set up a new phsics by the concepts of inertia and > > > independence of velocities in different axes(vector addition). SR and > > > GR(General Relativity) is also set up by claiming the velocity > > > additition rule is not a simple algebraic sum. I don't try it, but it > > > seems that the lorentz transformations can be derived from the velocity > > > addition rule which is (v+w)/(1+vw/c^2) if v and w have the same > > > direction. Now I will try to show that if relativity principle(i.e. if > > > there is no absolute inertial frame) is true, then the speed of light > > > must be a constant relative to the source. > > > > > > Let there are two platforms A and B and within each platform there are > > > two observers Oa and Ob respectively. Let the platforms are two trains > > > and Ob is in the middle of the train B with a detector D. On each of > > > the two far sides of the train there is a clock and a light source. > > > When the clock ticks a predefined times, the light source fires a light > > > beam such that it will hit the detector on the middle of the train. > > > I.e. the light source Sf fires light beam from left to right and Sb > > > fires in opposite direction as shown in the following. > > > > > > ------------------ > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > | | | Sf --------> D > > > <--------- Sb | > > > | Oa | | Cf Ob > > > Cb | > > > ------------------ > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Train A Train B -----> > > > x axis > > > > > > The distance between each light source and detector D is the same. > > > Detector gives two results: the two light beams hit at the same time > > > or in different times. > > > > > > My postulates are the followings: > > > > > > 1. The experiments within a train does not affected by the outside > > > objects which have a constant speed relative to it. > > > 2. The speed of light is direction independent within a train. > > > > > > > > > Experiment1: > > > Synchronize the clocks and set up such that the light sources will be > > > fired after n ticks. So they will fire at the same time according to > > > observer Ob. The relative speed of trains A and B is zero. So the same > > > thing is true for observer Oa. Of course , from the Ob's reference > > > frame the two lights must hit the detector at the same time with the > > > given postulates. This is the same for Oa. > > > > > > Experiment2: > > > Synchronize the clocks and set up such that the light sources will be > > > fired after n ticks. Place the clocks and light sources on the two far > > > sides of the train B as mentioned. The relative speed of trains A and > > > B is zero. So the clocks are synchronized according to both Oa and Ob. > > > Now let train B accelerates and reach a constant speed v relative to > > > train A after a while along the x axis. Then wait for the experiment > > > to be completed. According to Ob the experiment gives the same result. > > > I.e. the lights hit at the same time. Now examine what Oa see with the > > > assumption that the speed of light is always the same according to the > > > observer. > > > > > >>From Ob's reference frame: The clocks are still synchronized since they > > > share the same movement and so get the same affects. So the two light > > > beams are fired at the same time. The speed of the light train fired > > > from Sf is c and from Sb is -c. Still the distance between Sf and D is > > > the same with the distance between Sb and D although they are shorter > > > now. Let this distance be x. So, the travel time of the light beam > > > fired from Sf would be x/(c-v) and the travel time of the light beam > > > fired from Sb would be x/(c+v). Since v is greater than zero these > > > times are not equal and Oa predicts a different result from that of Ob. > > > So relativity principle conflicts with the postulate that the speed of > > > light is always the same according to the observer. > > > > > > Actually what above experiments show that if the relativity principle > > > is true and the speed of light is direction independent, then the speed > > > of light is direction independent relative to the source. Since the > > > direction independence of light speed is a proven fact(Michael&Morley > > > experiment and others), any theory conflicts with this also conflicts > > > with relativity principle. This means that the Lorentzian velocity > > > addition law conflicts with relativity principle. > > > > > > Lokman Kolukisa > > > > > > > The Lorentz transformations just describe rotations in a four > > dimensional space. As such, they are known to be mathematically self > > consistent. It follows that regardless of whether SR is a correct > > discription of reality, > > before you troll, learn the difference between a model of reality and a > description of reality. SR cannot be a description of reality because > 4-D spacetime is unobservable. > > > it cannot be invalidated by thought experiments > > which seek to demonstrate internal contradictions. > > The twin paradox demonsrates an internal contradiction in SR as > Einstein himslef admitted. You continue trolling., > > > > > So why do people keep trying? Every such attempt that is posted here > > constitutes nothing more than a request for an explanation of where the > > poster has got his or her maths wrong. > > Where is your math? I would be surprised if you can present a VALID > derivation of Lorentz tranfrom. Go ahead, make my day. > > > > > That's what schools are for. > > > > Who'd have thought that a group on relativity could be so tedius? > > You want to know had is tedious? LEARN: > > Axioms of SR: > > (See for example: http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/postulate.html ) > > 1. Space-time is a 4-D continuum --- fails verification (and common > sense) Since this is true in Newton's mechanics as well, I'm having a hard time accepting the "fails verification" part. Of course, it may be an abstraction you have a hard time understanding, but it seems pretty good at predicting the plants orbits. > > 2. There are globally inertial reference frames - fails verification Not a postulate. Learn to understand the concept of limits on measurements, theoretical ideals, etc. In short, all the hard work of real physics. > > 3. POR ( Principle of Relativity - An epistemological principle that > fails verification) Ah? The laws of the universe are different for you than for me, are they? Well, if you're insane enough, this may be true. Of course, we may measure different things, but observe the same laws. That's just fine. > > 4. Constancy of speed of light is all inertial FoR - fails verification > (and common sense) I'm wondering what experiments you are referring here that fail this verification. Usually, when someone announces that they have measured a different speed of light, the error exceeds the signal. > > How tedius that was? Wrong, useless, and I don't know *why* I'm responding to a known crank, but oh well. > > Mike > > > > > > > > > Sylvia.
From: Mike on 14 Dec 2006 15:46
PD wrote: > On Dec 14, 10:13 am, "Mike" <elea...(a)yahoo.gr> wrote: > > > > The Lorentz transformations just describe rotations in a four > > > dimensional space. As such, they are known to be mathematically self > > > consistent. It follows that regardless of whether SR is a correct > > > discription of reality,before you troll, learn the difference between a model of reality and a > > description of reality. SR cannot be a description of reality because > > 4-D spacetime is unobservable. > > > > > it cannot be invalidated by thought experiments > > > which seek to demonstrate internal contradictions.The twin paradox demonsrates an internal contradiction in SR as > > Einstein himslef admitted. You continue trolling., > > > > > > > > > So why do people keep trying? Every such attempt that is posted here > > > constitutes nothing more than a request for an explanation of where the > > > poster has got his or her maths wrong.Where is your math? I would be surprised if you can present a VALID > > derivation of Lorentz tranfrom. Go ahead, make my day. > > > > > > > > > That's what schools are for. > > > > > Who'd have thought that a group on relativity could be so tedius?You want to know had is tedious? LEARN: > > > > Axioms of SR: > > > > (See for example:http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/postulate.html) > > > > 1. Space-time is a 4-D continuum --- fails verification (and common > > sense) > > > > 2. There are globally inertial reference frames - fails verification > > > > 3. POR ( Principle of Relativity - An epistemological principle that > > fails verification) > > > > 4. Constancy of speed of light is all inertial FoR - fails verification > > (and common sense) > > > > How tedius that was? > > > > Mike > > > > By your terms, Mike, 3D space is not a description of reality because > it is not observable, either. Not observable? When santa Clauss comes to you take a look at those 3-D boxes with candy for you. You are out of your mind. > > And Newton's First Law is not a good model for reality, because there > is no object on which there is zero net force. ahahahahahahahaha..... Mike > > PD |