relativity vs velocity addition
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sylvia Else on 14 Dec 2006 15:59 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., There is no twin paradox. SR's predictions about twins are consistent (as of course they have to be given that SR is consistent). > > >>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. What would it prove? You'd just accuse me of copying it from somewhere. > > >>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) That doesn't alter the fact that it's internally consistent. > > 2. There are globally inertial reference frames - fails verification That doesn't alter the fact that it's internally consistent. > > 3. POR ( Principle of Relativity - An epistemological principle that > fails verification) That doesn't alter the fact that it's internally consistent. > > 4. Constancy of speed of light is all inertial FoR - fails verification > (and common sense) That doesn't alter the fact that it's internally consistent. > > How tedius that was? Very - you obviously do not understand what internally consistent means. I quote myself: "It follows that regardless of whether SR is a correct discription of reality, it cannot be invalidated by thought experiments which seek to demonstrate internal contradictions." So by all means cite real experiments that produce results that conflict with SR (don't just allege that they exist), but, please, no more thought experiments. Sylvia.
From: Mike on 14 Dec 2006 16:12 Sylvia Else wrote: > 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., > > There is no twin paradox. SR's predictions about twins are consistent > (as of course they have to be given that SR is consistent). Twin paradox is inconsistent with the Relativity Principle. Even Einstein realized that and concluded SR was "incomplete", a generous term for inconsistency. > > > > > > >>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. > > What would it prove? You'd just accuse me of copying it from somewhere. I do no accuse people of copy and paste except the King of copy and paste, Sam Wormhead. Just go ahead and copy and past any valid derivation you come accross. Failure to do so would indicate that you could not find one. > > > > > >>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) > > That doesn't alter the fact that it's internally consistent. > > > > > 2. There are globally inertial reference frames - fails verification > > That doesn't alter the fact that it's internally consistent. > > > > 3. POR ( Principle of Relativity - An epistemological principle that > > fails verification) > > That doesn't alter the fact that it's internally consistent. > > > > 4. Constancy of speed of light is all inertial FoR - fails verification > > (and common sense) > > That doesn't alter the fact that it's internally consistent. > > > > How tedius that was? > > Very - you obviously do not understand what internally consistent means. When a deduction from a theory comes to contradict one of its premises, or principles in this case, any fool, but you in this case, will know there is inconsistency. > > I quote myself: > > "It follows that regardless of whether SR is a correct discription of > reality, it cannot be invalidated by thought experiments which seek to > demonstrate internal contradictions." > > So by all means cite real experiments that produce results that conflict > with SR (don't just allege that they exist), but, please, no more > thought experiments. I am not in favor of thought experiments. Twin paradox is a mathematical deduction, not a thought experiment. There is no need to do any nexperiments when the theory is internally inconsistent. Experiments, do not prove a theory is correct. Experiments only falsify a theory. In this case of SR tghis is not even necessary because it is inconsistent in the first place. Any compensatory aether based theory generates the same experimental predictions as SR, including Lorentz relativity. That does not mean the eather exists of course. Mike > > Sylvia.
From: Mike on 14 Dec 2006 16:37 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. > > And Newton's First Law is not a good model for reality, because there > is no object on which there is zero net force. ok, I hahahhahahhaha before but I agree with this one. But I never started anything on the first law. All my argumenst were about the second law or the third. the first law just defines the inertial frames the other laws apply. regardless, neither Newton's laws are a true description of reality It is just a model. HAVE I EVER SAID newton's laws are a description of reality? Mike > > PD
From: Sylvia Else on 14 Dec 2006 16:53 Mike wrote: > I do no accuse people of copy and paste except the King of copy and > paste, Sam Wormhead. Just go ahead and copy and past any valid > derivation you come accross. Failure to do so would indicate that you > could not find one. Even in every day life you are unable to reason clearly. Failure to post a derivation on my part might just indicate that I can't be bothered, given that I know what it will lead to, so it would not be possible for you to conclude that I could not find one. Sylvia.
From: PD on 14 Dec 2006 18:47
On Dec 14, 3:37 pm, "Mike" <elea...(a)yahoo.gr> wrote: > 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. > > > And Newton's First Law is not a good model for reality, because there > > is no object on which there is zero net force. > ok, I hahahhahahhaha before but I agree with this one. But I never > started anything on the first law. All my argumenst were about the > second law or the third. the first law just defines the inertial frames > the other laws apply. regardless, neither Newton's laws are a true > description of reality It is just a model. > > HAVE I EVER SAID newton's laws are a description of reality? > > Mike > Ah, so now I understand a bit better where you're coming from. Your problem isn't with relativity per se. It's with physics in general, and the fact that the models that we use to predict behavior are not true descriptions of reality. In this objection, you include just about everything that's been done in physics since... well, forever. PD |