PDA

View Full Version : Special Relativity needs light to travel faster than c to be true

chinglu1998
2010-Dec-31, 11:42 PM
Imagine a light pulse that emits from the origin of two frames when origins same. Assume z = 0 v = 3/5c.
In unprimed frame, light will strike coordinate (-1ls,1ls) at t = √2s.
In primed frame, light will strike coordinate (1ls,1ls) at t = √2s.

From unprimed frame, primed origin is located ((√2) 3/5ls,0) when light strikes (-1ls,1ls).
We apply time dilation to primed origin. Time is √2(4/5) at primed origin.

So, light sphere is ahead in primed of the unprimed frame light sphere regardless of time dilation.
Therefore Special Relativity needs light to travel faster than c to be true.

Garrison
2010-Dec-31, 11:57 PM
Imagine a light pulse that emits from the origin of two frames when origins same. Assume z = 0 v = 3/5c.
In unprimed frame, light will strike coordinate (-1ls,1ls) at t = √2s.
In primed frame, light will strike coordinate (1ls,1ls) at t = √2s.

From unprimed frame, primed origin is located ((√2) 3/5ls,0) when light strikes (-1ls,1ls).
We apply time dilation to primed origin. Time is √2(4/5) at primed origin.

So, light sphere is ahead in primed of the unprimed frame light sphere regardless of time dilation.
Therefore Special Relativity needs light to travel faster than c to be true.

And you can provide a reference to some experimental data that backs up your interpretation?

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-01, 12:01 AM
And you can provide a reference to some experimental data that backs up your interpretation?

I do not need it. The math and data above is sufficient. I did not claim light exceeds speed c. I wrote Special relativity requires it.

That is the problem.

PetersCreek
2011-Jan-01, 12:13 AM
chinglu1998,

You are making an ATM claim about SR. You are required to answer questions. You are required to provide support or admit you don't have it. You will not attempt to shift your burden.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-01, 12:36 AM
And you can provide a reference to some experimental data that backs up your interpretation?

No, I have no experimental data to supply, sorry. All experiment data proves light proceeds a c in a vacuum of space.

Yet, the math of Special relativity requires light must travel faster than c.

Hornblower
2011-Jan-01, 12:43 AM
Imagine a light pulse that emits from the origin of two frames when origins same. Assume z = 0 v = 3/5c.
In unprimed frame, light will strike coordinate (-1ls,1ls) at t = √2s.
In primed frame, light will strike coordinate (1ls,1ls) at t = √2s.

From unprimed frame, primed origin is located ((√2) 3/5ls,0) when light strikes (-1ls,1ls).
We apply time dilation to primed origin. Time is √2(4/5) at primed origin.

So, light sphere is ahead in primed of the unprimed frame light sphere regardless of time dilation.
Therefore Special Relativity needs light to travel faster than c to be true.

1. What is an unprimed frame?
2. What is a primed frame?
3. What is s?
4. Can you walk us through Einstein's work step by step, in appropriate mathematical detail, and show us where you think he messed up, and why you think so?

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-01, 12:50 AM
1. What is an unprimed frame?
2. What is a primed frame?
3. What is s?
4. Can you walk us through Einstein's work step by step, in appropriate mathematical detail, and show us where you think he messed up, and why you think so?

1) unprimed frame is one of the frames.
2) primed frame is one of the frames.
3) "s" is seconds and "ls" is light seconds.
4) Sure,

Einstein said,

We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system, is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have assumed, this is the case in the stationary system; for we have not as yet furnished the proof that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is compatible with the principle of relativity.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

He checked each light beam measured c given a light beam in the unprimed frame using Lorentz Transforms.

The entire light postulate was not taken into consideration on a dynamic basis in the primed frame.

Garrison
2011-Jan-01, 01:13 AM
No, I have no experimental data to supply, sorry. All experiment data proves light proceeds a c in a vacuum of space.

Yet, the math of Special relativity requires light must travel faster than c.

No your math appears to show this, you have failed to show any proof that this corresponds with SR.

macaw
2011-Jan-01, 01:21 AM
Imagine a light pulse that emits from the origin of two frames when origins same. Assume z = 0 v = 3/5c.
In unprimed frame, light will strike coordinate (-1ls,1ls) at t = √2s.

Q1: What is (-1,1)? Location (x,y)=(-1,1)?

In primed frame, light will strike coordinate (1ls,1ls) at t = √2s.

Q2: Is this the same ray of light as the one in Q1?
Q3: How did you obtain t = √2s? Show your calculations, please.

From unprimed frame, primed origin is located ((√2) 3/5ls,0) when light strikes (-1ls,1ls).

Q4: How did you come up with the above numbers? Show your calculations, please.

We apply time dilation to primed origin. Time is √2(4/5) at primed origin.

Q5: Why? Show the calculations.

So, light sphere is ahead in primed of the unprimed frame light sphere regardless of time dilation.
Therefore Special Relativity needs light to travel faster than c to be true.

Whatever you did , is incorrect. Special relativity is founded on the fact that light travels at exactly c. So, since you may have tried to use SR, as in the previous threads (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/109787-Special-Relativity-is-wrong-because-time-dilation-is-false.?highlight=) , you used it incorrectly.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-01, 01:21 AM
No your math appears to show this, you have failed to show any proof that this corresponds with SR.

do you know the light postulate?

In unprimed frame, light will strike coordinate (-1ls,1ls) at t = √2s.
In primed frame, light will strike coordinate (1ls,1ls) at t = √2s.

I wrote z = 0.
ct' = √( x'² + y²) = √(1)² + (1)² = √2s
ct = √( x² + y²) = √(-1)² + (1)² = √2s

As you can observer, you are wrong. This is the SR light postulate. So far, I am pure mainstream.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-01, 01:27 AM
Q1: What is (-1,1)? Location (x,y)=(-1,1)?

Q2: Is this the same ray of light as the one in Q1?
Q3: How did you obtain t = √2s? Show your calculations, please.

Q4: How did you come up with the above numbers? Show your calculations, please.

Q5: Why? Show the calculations.

Whatever you did , is incorrect. Special relativity is founded on the fact that light travels at exactly c. So, since you may have tried to use SR, as in the previous threads , you used it incorrectly.

Of course, you know I have been waiting for you. Many thanks for your questions.

Q1, yes.
Q2 No
Q3 ct' = √( x'² + y²) = √(1)² + (1)² = √2s
ct = √( x² + y²) = √(-1)² + (1)² = √2s
Q4. Since √2s has elapsed in the unprimed frame, then according to x = vt with v = 3/5c, we have the moving origin at ((√2) 3/5ls,0)

Q5. We have a thread here that everyone agrees the moving origins beats time dilated. Hence if time is √2s in rest frame, then time is √2(4/5) at primed origin.

macaw
2011-Jan-01, 01:27 AM
do you know the light postulate?

In unprimed frame, light will strike coordinate (-1ls,1ls) at t = √2s.
In primed frame, light will strike coordinate (1ls,1ls) at t = √2s.

I wrote z = 0.
ct' = √( x'² + y²) = √(1)² + (1)² = √2s
ct = √( x² + y²) = √(-1)² + (1)² = √2s

As you can observer, you are wrong. This is the SR light postulate. So far, I am pure mainstream.

No, you are not, the above, contrary to your claim in the first post, is not a "light pulse", it is a spherical wave. You need to go back and get your problem statement corrct. Even if you did, you still do not have a valid scenario since you are using SR and SR is built n light traveling at exactly....c.

macaw
2011-Jan-01, 01:30 AM
Q5. We have a thread here that everyone agrees the moving origins beats time dilated. Hence if time is √2s in rest frame, then time is √2(4/5) at primed origin.

First off, no one agrees with you. Second off, the above is incomprehensible. What is "moving origins beats time dilated"?

macaw
2011-Jan-01, 01:34 AM
Q5. We have a thread here that everyone agrees the moving origins beats time dilated. Hence if time is √2s in rest frame, then time is √2(4/5) at primed origin.

I see, this is a new misconception, you are trying to compare the origin of the primed frame frame , that moves at 3c/5 with the position of the point on the spherical light wave, that move at c. And you think that the fact that you get different values disproves SR?

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-01, 01:35 AM
No, you are not, the above, contrary to your claim in the first post, is not a "light pulse", it is a spherical wave. You need to go back and get your problem statement corrct. Even if you did, you still do not have a valid scenario since you are using SR and SR is built n light traveling at exactly....c.

I applied the light postulate in the individual frames. Yes, a light pulse becomes a spherical wave. Such small detail.

Note both my calculations based on the light postulate contains the constant c, so your comments are false.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-01, 01:37 AM
I see, this is a new misconception, you are trying to compare the origin of the primed frame frame , that moves at 3c/5 with the position of the point on the spherical light wave, that move at c. And you think that the fact that you get different values disproves SR?

No, I am using time dilation as an absolute fact as established here. I love absolute facts and you?

I notice the unprimed frame claims time dilation for the primed origin and that is an absolute fact. Let's first make sure we are on the same page.

macaw
2011-Jan-01, 01:42 AM
I applied the light postulate in the individual frames. Yes, a light pulse becomes a spherical wave. Such small detail.

Note both my calculations based on the light postulate contains the constant c, so your comments are false.

You are comparing apples and oranges, as explained in my previous post. You are incorrectly comparing the distance traveled by two different points (the origin of the primed frame and the point on the spherical wavefront). The first travels at 3c/5, the second travels at c, this is why you are getting an erroneous result. Your errors in misapplying SR are very easy to spot and your ATM is nothing but another misapplication of basic relativity. You can't prove relativity wrong by using relativity. You need to understand that before you generate more ATMs.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-01, 01:46 AM
You are comparing apples and oranges, your ATM is nothing but another misapplication of basic relativity. You can't prove relativity wrong by using relativity. You need to understand that before you generate more ATMs.

I have used the light postulate and time dilation.

All the math provided is valid. This post is nothing more than opinion. Given precise math like I have presented, please turn your opinions into the correct math.

macaw
2011-Jan-01, 01:50 AM
I have used the light postulate and time dilation.

All the math provided is valid. This post is nothing more than opinion. Given precise math like I have presented, please turn your opinions into the correct math.

You have used a basic error in order to compare apples and oranges. Took less than 5 minutes to find it.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-01, 01:55 AM
You have used a basic error in order to compare apples and oranges. Took less than 5 minutes to find it.

Is the primed origin not where I placed it based on the absolute fact of time dilation? Yes it is.

Once I apply the absolute fact of time dilation and the light postulate, where show the moving frame find the light sphere? Well the answer of this lies with the light postulate.

Since time dilation is a fact, then t' = 4/5(√2)

We can then apply the SR light postulate as absolute fact.

ct' = √( x'² + y²)

c (4/5(√2)) = √( x'² + y²).

This should be funny.

Garrison
2011-Jan-01, 01:57 AM
I have used the light postulate and time dilation.

All the math provided is valid. This post is nothing more than opinion. Given precise math like I have presented, please turn your opinions into the correct math.

You have shown nothing to demonstrate it is valid, it might be self-consistent but that is not the same thing at all. Can you show any experimental evidence or scientific papers that agrees with your opinion? As has been pointed out it does not require math to explain the flawed assumption you have used to construct your equations. The burden is on you to show that they have any merit.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-01, 02:00 AM
You have shown nothing to demonstrate it is valid, it might be self-consistent but that is not the same thing at all. Can you show any experimental evidence or scientific papers that agrees with your opinion? As has been pointed out it does not require math to explain the flawed assumption you have used to construct your equations. The burden is on you to show that they have any merit.

As I said, all experiments show light moves c.

I am not disputing that.

If you are following my math thus far, SR is claiming that is false. SR is disputing these experiments.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-01, 02:07 AM
Here is the deal.

Since time dilation is a fact, then t' = 4/5(√2).

Set y = 0.

Next, since the light postulate is a fact in the moving frame, then, c (4/5(√2)) = √( x'²) = x'.

Hence, x' = c (4/5(√2)).

Yet, we look at the origin of the moving frame it is located at,

vt = (3/5)(√2).

In the view of the rest frame, we must apply length contraction to x' so, this translates to c(4/5(√2))(4/5)

Next, we add this to the location of the moving origin vt + x'/γ = (3/5)(√2) + (4/5(√2))(4/5).

This value is greater than (√2) for the light beam in the rest frame along the positive x axis.

Hence, SR requires light beams to travel > c in the coordinates of the rest frame to be true.

Garrison
2011-Jan-01, 02:13 AM
As I said, all experiments show light moves c.

I am not disputing that.

If you are following my math thus far, SR is claiming that is false. SR is disputing these experiments.

No, you have failed to prove your math is a reasonable demonstration of SR, and you appear to be admitting that you cannot correlate it to any evidence or physical theory. In fact everyone else seems to accept that SR accords with light having a velocity of c. Now either we accept every experiment constructed and every scientist who has studied the subject of SR is wrong or, (and isn't this much more likely?) you comprehension of SR is flawed and your equations have no physical meaning.
Simply because you can construct an equation that is internally consistent does not give it validty in the larger world, especially when it appears to contradict the mainstream model of SR.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-01, 02:18 AM
No, you have failed to prove your math is a reasonable demonstration of SR, and you appear to be admitting that you cannot correlate it to any evidence or physical theory. In fact everyone else seems to accept that SR accords with light having a velocity of c. Now either we accept every experiment constructed and every scientist who has studied the subject of SR is wrong or, (and isn't this much more likely?) you comprehension of SR is flawed and your equations have no physical meaning.
Simply because you can construct an equation that is internally consistent does not give it validty in the larger world, especially when it appears to contradict the mainstream model of SR.

If you think my math has failed, which part are you refuting, the absolute truth of time dilation or the absolute truth of the light postulate? please be specific.

Garrison
2011-Jan-01, 02:25 AM
If you think my math has failed, which part are you refuting, the absolute truth of time dilation or the absolute truth of the light postulate? please be specific.

The flaw is in your assumptions, not your math and macaw has already explained that. And again it is you who must show that your equations are a valid description of SR, which it appears you cannot do. Again I ask for any evidence that supports your position that SR is flawed other than your invalid equations.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-01, 02:34 AM
The flaw is in your assumptions, not your math and macaw has already explained that. And again it is you who must show that your equations are a valid description of SR, which it appears you cannot do. Again I ask for any evidence that supports your position that SR is flawed other than your invalid equations.

Yea, he said I am using apples and oranges.

Again, I ask what you are refuting the light postulate or time dilation.

Again, I said all experiments, except GPS with sagnac, show light is measured c in the frame.

I am amazed by the lack of math on the part of the refuters.

macaw
2011-Jan-01, 03:29 AM
We can then apply the SR light postulate as absolute fact.

ct' = √( x'² + y²)

c (4/5(√2)) = √( x'² + y²).

This should be funny.

Yes, it is very funny, you are using the fact that light travels at c in your calculations to arrive at the conclusion that light travels at ...more than c. Basic errors do not form good ATMs.

tusenfem
2011-Jan-01, 11:07 AM
chingli, you really need to think about what you write down first, and then give a FULL DESCRIPTION of what you propose. Just three sentences does not suffice.

Things to notice:
If you have a spherical wave front in the non-moving frame "s" then, even though the origins of "s" and "-prime" are at the same location at t=0, the moving frame "s-prime" will not see a spherical wave front moving away from the origin, but an elliptical wave front. Just because the origins were at the same location at t=0 does not mean that the two frames, s and s-prime, are interchangeable.

Now, please, try to understand this part above first, before you start answering questions.

Garrison
2011-Jan-01, 01:39 PM
Yea, he said I am using apples and oranges.

Again, I ask what you are refuting the light postulate or time dilation.

Again, I said all experiments, except GPS with sagnac, show light is measured c in the frame.

I am amazed by the lack of math on the part of the refuters.

Math would only be needed if your initial assumptions were valid, it has been shown that they are not and thus your math is irrelevant.

Fortis
2011-Jan-01, 11:31 PM
Chinglu1998, it is really simple.

1) The magnitude of the spacetime interval, ds, is invariant under the Lorentz transformation. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree then please give reasons.

2) For any pair of spacetime events connected through the passage of a photon, ds=0 because dx=c.dt. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please explain why.

3) This means that in the primed frame, ds'=ds=0. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree the please explain why.

4) If ds'=0 then this means that dx'=c.dt', or the speed of the photon in the primed frame, dx'/dt'=c. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree please explain why.

If you do agree with the above, then you must see that this means that light travels at c in all inertial reference frames, and your claim is false. Do you agree or disagree?

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-01, 11:50 PM
Yes, it is very funny, you are using the fact that light travels at c in your calculations to arrive at the conclusion that light travels at ...more than c. Basic errors do not form good ATMs.

I am using the postulate that light measures c in both frames to show that implies the two frames are not talkng about the same light beams.

As I posted,

ct' = √( x'² + y²)

c (4/5(√2)) = √( x'² + y²).

This implies the observer in the primed frame views light equi-distant from its origin at any time t.

That is the light postulate.

Now, if time dilation is absolute, then given t in the unprimed frame, the origin of the primed frame has t/γ on its clock.

From the light postulate in the primed frqame, that places light a distance ct/γ on all directions from its origin.
That means, light is located at vt + x'/γ = (3/5)(√2) + (4/5(√2))(4/5).

That puts light further down the positive x-axis than the light sphere for the unprimed frame.

Can the unprimed frame refute light is located at that position.

The above classifications hold true in any frame of reference; that is, an event judged to be in the light cone by one observer, will also be judged to be in the same light cone by all other observers, no matter their frame of reference. This is why the concept is so powerful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

Since the primed origin observer concludes light is located at x' (in the light cone), no observer in the universe can refute that assertion.

This places light out in front of the unprimed frame light sphere.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-01, 11:51 PM
Math would only be needed if your initial assumptions were valid, it has been shown that they are not and thus your math is irrelevant.

Sorry, I missed what assumptions are false. Is it the light postulate or time dilation?

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-01, 11:56 PM
Chinglu1998, it is really simple.

1) The magnitude of the spacetime interval, ds, is invariant under the Lorentz transformation. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree then please give reasons.

2) For any pair of spacetime events connected through the passage of a photon, ds=0 because dx=c.dt. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please explain why.

3) This means that in the primed frame, ds'=ds=0. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree the please explain why.

4) If ds'=0 then this means that dx'=c.dt', or the speed of the photon in the primed frame, dx'/dt'=c. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree please explain why.

If you do agree with the above, then you must see that this means that light travels at c in all inertial reference frames, and your claim is false. Do you agree or disagree?

1) agree
2) agree
3) Your wrote " This means that in the primed frame, ds'=ds=0" this is true for all frames when mapping light beams. So agree and more.
4) Agree the speed of light is c as you wrote.

What you skipped over in all this is you are simply restating the light postulate in each individual frame. That is simple.

What I am doing is putting both light postulates together which non of your questions address.

Both light postulates must be true for any time in any frame. This is not ATM.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 12:21 AM
There is severe misconception on what I am doing.

I am not refuting the light postulate in the individual frame. I am assuming it is true.

But, also the light postulate in the other frame must be true always as well.

I am putting them both together in the context of one frame to see if they are compatible.

macaw
2011-Jan-02, 01:21 AM
I am using the postulate that light measures c in both frames to show that implies the two frames are not talkng about the same light beams.

As I posted,

ct' = √( x'² + y²)

c (4/5(√2)) = √( x'² + y²).

So, you are accepting that light speed is frame-invariant and equal to c.
You are using the fact that light speed id frame-invariant and equal to c in your "calculations".
Yet, your "calculations" lead you to the incorrect result that light speed is greater than c.
The reason for your erroneous result is that you are comparing the position of the origin of the primed frame , that travels at 3c/5 with the position of a point on the spherical wavefront that travels at c. You use the same amount of travel time for both of them, thus doing your "apples vs. oranges" comparison. This is a beginner mistake, not an ATM.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 01:30 AM
So, you are accepting that light speed is frame-invariant and equal to c.
You are using the fact that light speed id frame-invariant and equal to c in your "calculations".
Yet, your "calculations" lead you to the incorrect result that light speed is greater than c.
The reason for your erroneous result is that you are comparing the position of the origin of the primed frame , that travels at 3c/5 with the position of a point on the spherical wavefront that travels at c. You use the same amount of travel time for both of them, thus doing your "apples vs. oranges" comparison. This is a beginner mistake, not an ATM.

No, your statement above is not true.

I am using time dilation as an absolute fact to be believed by humankind 1000000 years from now.

Then, I apply the light postulate in the moving frame that concludes the light sphere is spherical.

This places light a distance ct' away from the moving origin on the positive x-axis. If this is false, then the light postulate in the moving frame is false.

Now, given time dilation, t' = t/γ for any elapsed time in the unprimed frame.

That places light a distance ct/γ in the view of the moving frame.

But, given length contraction and the motion of the origin, that places the leading edge of the light sphere for the primed frame at vt + x'/γ = vt + (ct/γ)/γ.

Based on the truth of the light postulate in the primed frame, this places light out in front of the light sphere in the unprimed frame.

If the light postulates were compatible, the light sphere would always be at the same location with only a different time. They are not.

macaw
2011-Jan-02, 01:44 AM
Now, given time dilation, t' = t/γ for any elapsed time in the unprimed frame.

The above shows time contraction, not time dilation.

Q1: can you correct your error and write down the correct equation?

That places light a distance ct/γ in the view of the moving frame.

This is false by virtue of the previous error and some additional error.

Q2: can you correct the error in the above?

But, given length contraction and the motion of the origin, that places the leading edge of the light sphere for the primed frame at vt + x'/γ = vt + (ct/γ)/γ.

This is wrong by virtue of the previous two errors and some additional misapplication of SR.

Q3: can you write the correct equation?

No, your statement above is not true.

I am using time dilation as an absolute fact to be believed by humankind 1000000 years from now.

Whatever you are using is incorrect. Take some time to read the corrections.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 01:54 AM
Whatever you are using is incorrect. Take some time to read the corrections.

Sure, let t' be any time in the moving frame. Where is the light sphere? Did you answer ct'?

Now, let t be any time in the rest frame. What is the time on the clock at the origin of the moving frame? Did you answer t/γ?

Good. Now based on all this, the light sphere is a distance ct' = ct/γ in all directions in the moving frame from the origin because the light postulate is an absolute fact in that frame.

No, I do not think I need to think about this. I am applying the truth of time dilation and the light postulate.

macaw
2011-Jan-02, 02:03 AM
Now, let t be any time in the rest frame. What is the time on the clock at the origin of the moving frame? Did you answer t/γ?

You keep answering incorrectly.Instead of posting errors, your time would be better spent taking a class in basic relativity. Anyways, according to the BAUT rules, you are supposed to answer my questions in a timely fashion, so, please answer Q1-Q3. Thank you.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 02:10 AM
The above shows time contraction, not time dilation.

Q1: can you correct your error and write down the correct equation?

Now, given time dilation, t' = t/γ for any elapsed time in the unprimed frame.

No,I cannot correct this. It is already correct. For any elapsed time in the "stationary" unprimed frame, t' = t/γ or t'γ = t which means the moving clock is time dilated. You are making silly errors. I have not seen you like this.

This is false by virtue of the previous error and some additional error.

Q2: can you correct the error in the above?

The above demonstrates your misunderstanding. You are in error.

This is wrong by virtue of the previous two errors and some additional misapplication of SR.

Q3: can you write the correct equation?

You are compounding your error based on the fact the moving frame origin beats time dilated as this forum has accepted as absolute fact.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 02:12 AM
You keep answering incorrectly.Instead of posting errors, your time would be better spent taking a class in basic relativity. Anyways, according to the BAUT rules, you are supposed to answer my questions in a timely fashion, so, please answer Q1-Q3. Thank you.

You posted a post and then edited it. I did not see your questions because they were not part of the original post.

Perhaps, if you could think your questions through before you post, this would not occur.

macaw
2011-Jan-02, 02:12 AM
No,I cannot correct this. It is already correct. For any elapsed time in the "stationary" unprimed frame, t' = t/γ or t'γ = t which means the moving clock is time dilated. You are making silly errors. I have not seen you like this.

Too bad, since t' = t/γ signifies time contraction , not time dilation. An elementary mistake and a very bad start for your "theory".

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 02:19 AM
Too bad, since t' = t/γ signifies time contraction , not time dilation. An elementary mistake and a very bad start for your "theory".

There is just one problem, the unprimed frame is taken as stationary.
Thus, t' = t/γ is correct. This is the same thing as t'γ = t which means the origin of the moving frame beats more slowly or time dilated.

Was there something about the way I presented it that tricked you?

Anyway, based on time dilation, t'γ = t when the unprimed frame is taken as stationary.

macaw
2011-Jan-02, 02:21 AM
There is just one problem, the unprimed frame is taken as stationary.
Thus, t' = t/γ is correct. .

Nope, it is NEVER correct.

Jim
2011-Jan-02, 02:29 AM
chinglu1998, what value are you using for γ?

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 02:29 AM
Thus, t' = t/γ is correct. .

Nope, it is NEVER correct.

Further, we imagine one of the clocks which are qualified to mark the time t when at rest relatively to the stationary system, and the time when at rest relatively to the moving system, to be located at the origin of the co-ordinates of k, and so adjusted that it marks the time . What is the rate of this clock, when viewed from the stationary system?

Between the quantities x, t, and , which refer to the position of the clock, we have, evidently, x=vt and
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

t' = ( t - vx/c² )γ

As Einstein suggests, from the view of the unprimed frame, we set x = vt.

t' = ( t - vvt/c² )γ
t' = t( 1 - v²/c² )γ
t' = (t/γ²)γ = t/γ.

Feel free to read this section above.

As we can see, I copy Einstein's proof so I am perfectly correct and you are perfectly wrong.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 02:31 AM
chinglu1998, what value are you using for γ?

\gamma

Can find here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

macaw
2011-Jan-02, 02:35 AM

Further, we imagine one of the clocks which are qualified to mark the time t when at rest relatively to the stationary system, and the time when at rest relatively to the moving system, to be located at the origin of the co-ordinates of k, and so adjusted that it marks the time . What is the rate of this clock, when viewed from the stationary system?

Between the quantities x, t, and , which refer to the position of the clock, we have, evidently, x=vt and
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

t' = ( t - vx/c² )γ

As Einstein suggests, from the view of the unprimed frame, we set x = vt.

t' = ( t - vvt/c² )γ
t' = t( 1 - v²/c² )γ
t' = (t/γ²)γ = t/γ.

Feel free to read this section above.

As we can see, I copy Einstein's proof so I am perfectly correct and you are perfectly wrong.

The calendar says year 2011, not 1905. Since 1905, the above derivation has been corrected countless times. Too bad that you don't know about it. Consulting any introductory book on relativity might help you learn the theory that you so desperately try to refute by misapplying it.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 02:40 AM
The calendar says year 2011, not 1905. Since 1905, the above derivation has been corrected countless times. Too bad that you don't know about it.

The above derivation is correct and by Einstein. If it has been refuted, then Einstein is wrong and so is time dilation.

Since Einstein is mainstream and you agree Einstein is wrong, it is on you to prove your case.

Otherwise, confess Einstein is perfectly correct and you are perfectly wrong.

macaw
2011-Jan-02, 02:44 AM
The above derivation is correct and by Einstein. If it has been refuted, then Einstein is wrong and so is time dilation.

Since Einstein is mainstream and you agree Einstein is wrong, it is on you to prove your case.

Otherwise, confess Einstein is perfectly correct and you are perfectly wrong.

Like I said, you would better spend your time learning the theory that you are trying to disprove by repeated misapplications of its basis.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 02:47 AM
Like I said, you would better spend your time learning the theory that you are trying to disprove by repeated misapplications of its basis.

The above derivation is correct and by Einstein. If it has been refuted, then Einstein is wrong and so is time dilation.

Since Einstein is mainstream and you agree Einstein is wrong, it is on you to prove your case.

Otherwise, confess Einstein is perfectly correct and you are perfectly wrong.

macaw
2011-Jan-02, 02:52 AM

[I]The above derivation is correct and by Einstein. If it has been refuted, then Einstein is wrong and so is time dilation.

No, what is wrong is your understanding of relativity as demonstrated by your repeated misapplication.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 02:59 AM
No, what is wrong is your understanding of relativity as demonstrated by your repeated misapplication.

Originally Posted by macaw
The calendar says year 2011, not 1905. Since 1905, the above derivation has been corrected countless times. Too bad that you don't know about it.

The above derivation is correct and by Einstein. If it has been refuted, then Einstein is wrong and so is time dilation.

Since Einstein is mainstream and you agree Einstein is wrong, it is on you to prove your case.

Otherwise, confess Einstein is perfectly correct and you are perfectly wrong.

Are you going to address the fact you are refuting Einstein?

You are losing all credibility as an examiner.

You need to admit you were wrong to refute Einstein's results or all readers here may think you are a crackpot. I really do not want that for you.

Jim
2011-Jan-02, 03:06 AM
\gamma

Can find here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

I really, really wanted you to write it out yourself. But...

γ = 1/sqrt(1-v2/c2)

You say,
t' = t/γ
which would then be,
t' = t/(1/sqrt(1-v2/c2)), or
t'=t*sqrt(1-v2/c2)

But, according to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_due_to_relative_veloci ty),
t'=tγ, or
t'=t*(1/sqrt(1-v2/c2)), or
t'=t/sqrt(1-v2/c2))

So, either you're using a different γ, or you're dividing when you should be multiplying.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 03:13 AM
I really, really wanted you to write it out yourself. But...

γ = 1/sqrt(1-v2/c2)

You say,
t' = t/γ
which would then be,
t' = t/(1/sqrt(1-v2/c2)), or
t'=t*sqrt(1-v2/c2)

But, according to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation_due_to_relative_veloci ty),
t'=tγ, or
t'=t*(1/sqrt(1-v2/c2)), or
t'=t/sqrt(1-v2/c2))

So, either you're using a different γ, or you're dividing when you should be multiplying.

No, I did nothing wrong.

Look carefully at the diagram, the primed frame is stationary.

So, it is natural t'=t γ.

But, when the unprimed frame is stationary as in my example, t'=t / γ

Jim
2011-Jan-02, 03:21 AM
No, I did nothing wrong.

Look carefully at the diagram, the primed frame is stationary.

So, it is natural t'=t γ.

But, when the unprimed frame is stationary as in my example, t'=t / γ

I don't think so.

The explanation under the equation says, "Δt is the time interval between two co-local events ... for an observer in some inertial frame ... , Δt ' is the time interval between those same events, as measured by another observer, inertially moving with velocity v with respect to the former observer..." (emphasis added)

So, the primed frame is moving wrt to the unprimed and stationary frame.

macaw
2011-Jan-02, 03:32 AM
No, I did nothing wrong.

Look carefully at the diagram, the primed frame is stationary.

So, it is natural t'=t γ.

But, when the unprimed frame is stationary as in my example, t'=t / γ

we've been over this inability to understand time dilation/length contraction in your previous (locked) thread. I have shown you how to derive time dilation correctly there. Looks like you did not learn anything since you are repeating the same mistakes. It is very simple, really:

t'=\gamma(t-vx/c^2)

Expressed in intervals:

Delta_t'=\gamma* (Delta_t-v*Delta_x/c^2)

If the observer in the primed frame is trying to correlate two events separated temporarily in the unprimed frame (meaning Delta_x=0) then:

Delta_t'=\gamma*Delta_t

You can find the same demonstration in all the SR introductory books.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 03:33 AM
I don't think so.

The explanation under the equation says, "Δt is the time interval between two co-local events ... for an observer in some inertial frame ... , Δt ' is the time interval between those same events, as measured by another observer, inertially moving with velocity v with respect to the former observer..." (emphasis added)

So, the primed frame is moving wrt to the unprimed and stationary frame.

So, what is it we have then?

Let's assume the unprimed frame is at rest.

Wiki says

t' = t γ = t / ( √( 1 - v² / c²)

Now, the moving clock is t'. Set v = 3/5c.

t' = t / ( √( 1 - 9/25) ) = t / ( √( 16/25) ) = t / ( 4/5) = (5/4) t

This means for every second of the rest clock, the moving clock beats (5/4) seconds or faster than the rest clock. The moving clock is supposed to beat slower.

Moral to the story, don't believe everything you read on the internet. Know the theory.

macaw
2011-Jan-02, 03:33 AM
No, I did nothing wrong.

Look carefully at the diagram, the primed frame is stationary.

So, it is natural t'=t γ.

Correct.

But, when the unprimed frame is stationary as in my example, t'=t / γ

Incorrect.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 03:36 AM
we've been over this inability to understand time dilation/length contraction in your previous (locked) thread. I have shown you how to derive time dilation correctly there. Looks like you did not learn anything since you are repeating the same mistakes. It is very simple, really:

t'=\gamma(t-vx/c^2)

Expressed in intervals:

Delta_t'=\gamma* (Delta_t-v*Delta_x/c^2)

If the observer in the primed frame is trying to correlate two events separated temporarily in the unprimed frame (meaning Delta_x=0) then:

Delta_t'=\gamma*Delta_t

You can find the same demonstration in all the SR introductory books.

You have an error. Since \gamma > 1, then you are claiming t' beats faster since Delta_t'=\gamma*Delta_t. t' is the moving frame and beats slower.

Do you understand basic math?

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 03:38 AM
.

But, when the unprimed frame is stationary as in my example, t'=t / γ

Incorrect.

This is the example of Einstein. Seems no person understand any of this.

macaw
2011-Jan-02, 03:41 AM
You have an error. Since \gamma > 1, then you are claiming t' beats faster since Delta_t'=\gamma*Delta_t. t' is the moving frame and beats slower.

Do you understand basic math?

Yes, I do. I also understand physics. Unfortunately, you got this one wrong as well, Delta_t' > Delta_t doesn't mean that "t' beats faster"

Q5: What does it REALLY mean, chinglu?

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 03:44 AM
Yes, I do. I also understand physics. Unfortunately, you got this one wrong as well, Delta_t' > Delta_t doesn't mean that "t' beats faster"

Q5: What does it REALLY mean, chinglu?

Yes, I do. I also understand physics. Unfortunately, you understand neither.

Chinglu: But, when the unprimed frame is stationary as in my example, t'=t / γ

Trout: Incorrect

Chinglu Below

Further, we imagine one of the clocks which are qualified to mark the time t when at rest relatively to the stationary system, and the time when at rest relatively to the moving system, to be located at the origin of the co-ordinates of k, and so adjusted that it marks the time . What is the rate of this clock, when viewed from the stationary system?

Between the quantities x, t, and , which refer to the position of the clock, we have, evidently, x=vt and
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

t' = ( t - vx/c² )γ

As Einstein suggests, from the view of the unprimed frame, we set x = vt.

t' = ( t - vvt/c² )γ
t' = t( 1 - v²/c² )γ
t' = (t/γ²)γ = t/γ.

Feel free to read this section above.

As we can see, I copy Einstein's proof so I am perfectly correct and you are perfectly wrong.

macaw
2011-Jan-02, 03:46 AM
As Einstein suggests, from the view of the unprimed frame, we set x = vt.

We no longer "set x=vt". We have much better proofs in 2011 than in 1905.

t' = ( t - vvt/c² )γ
t' = t( 1 - v²/c² )γ
t' = (t/γ²)γ = t/γ.

Feel free to read this section above.

Yes, I read it many times, I have also shown you the contemporary proof, you need to invest in a class or a book (at least).

As we can see, I copy Einstein's proof so I am perfectly correct and you are perfectly wrong.

You can copy all you want, if you don't also try to understand what you are copying, it will amount to nothing.

korjik
2011-Jan-02, 03:48 AM
I have a feeling we have seen this all before.....

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 03:49 AM
You can copy all you want, if you don't also try to understand what you are copying, it will amount to nothing.

This is the result of Einstein from my post when unprimed is stationary.

t' = (t/γ²)γ = t/γ.

Are you refuting this? I will post Einstein's conclusions.

macaw
2011-Jan-02, 03:51 AM
This is the result of Einstein from my post when unprimed is stationary.

t' = (t/γ²)γ = t/γ.

Are you refuting this? I will post Einstein's conclusions.

Yep, you are misapplying relativity. You are very consistent about it.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 03:51 AM
I have a feeling we have seen this all before.....

No different this time.

First time I attacked SR based on time dilation being false.

Now, I am attacking it based on time dilation being true.

It is funny now how many are refuting time dilation.

Do you agree with time dilation?

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 03:52 AM
Yep, you are misapplying relativity. You are very consistent about it.

Yep, my post is the same conclusions with Einstein. Are you refuting Einstein?

macaw
2011-Jan-02, 03:52 AM
I have a feeling we have seen this all before.....

Sure, it is the same basic errors from the previous threads where chinglu "disproves" relativity by misapplying it.

macaw
2011-Jan-02, 03:53 AM
Yep, my post is the same conclusions with Einstein. Are you refuting Einstein?

Nope, I am only refuting your misapplication of Einstein's theory.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 03:54 AM
Yep, you are misapplying relativity. You are very consistent about it.

What part of this Einstein logic is false? This is Einstein's proof.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

As Einstein suggests, from the view of the unprimed frame, we set x = vt.

t' = ( t - vvt/c² )γ
t' = t( 1 - v²/c² )γ
t' = (t/γ²)γ = t/γ.

Feel free to read this section above.

As we can see, I copy Einstein's proof so I am perfectly correct and you are perfectly wrong.

macaw
2011-Jan-02, 03:54 AM
No different this time.

First time I attacked SR based on time dilation being false.

Now, I am attacking it based on time dilation being true.

You can't.

It is funny now how many are refuting time dilation.

How many have succeeded, chinglu?

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 03:55 AM
Does everyone agree with time dilation?

If so, let's proceed.

LotusExcelle
2011-Jan-02, 03:57 AM
What you are saying is essentially is that because you can cut an paste and then duct-tape an incorrect conclusion, you are right? Am I missing something?

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 03:58 AM
Based on time dilation, it is the mainstream that if t elapses on the clock at the origin of the rest frame then t/γ elapses on the clock of the moving origin based on time dilation.

Does anyone refute this?

macaw
2011-Jan-02, 03:58 AM
What part of this Einstein logic is false? .

Sadly, the part where he sets x=vt. The Lorentz transforms are true for arbitrary values of x, so I showed you the modern proof that does not rely on setting x=vt. You need to invest in learning relativity , chinglu. Trying to learn it on the cheap, from the 1905 free paper on the web will not be enough.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 03:58 AM
What you are saying is essentially is that because you can cut an paste and then duct-tape an incorrect conclusion, you are right? Am I missing something?

What is the incorrect conclusion?

macaw
2011-Jan-02, 03:59 AM
Based on time dilation, it is the mainstream that if t elapses on the clock at the origin of the rest frame then t/γ elapses on the clock of the moving origin based on time dilation.

Does anyone refute this?

You are the only one that keeps making this mistake.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 04:01 AM
Sadly, the part where he sets x=vt. The Lorentz transforms are true for arbitrary values of x, so I showed you the modern proof that does not rely on setting x=vt. You need to invest in learning relativity , chinglu. Trying to learn it on the cheap, from the 1905 free paper on the web will not be enough.

Einstein's proof relies on x = vt. Are you saying this is false? Are you saying the proof is wrong.

This is Einstein and all other proofs will be up for observations as possible ATM.

Show your proof so I may observer it.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 04:03 AM
You are the only one that keeps making this mistake.

This is Einstein's conclusion in Chapter 4.

Why do you refute Einstein?

If I do not correctly provide the views of Einstein please state why. Otherwise, you are ATM.

macaw
2011-Jan-02, 04:03 AM
Einstein's proof relies on x = vt.

That's too bad, the proof needs to apply for any x. Invest in a modern book or take a class.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 04:05 AM
Originally Posted by chinglu1998
Einstein's proof relies on x = vt.

That's too bad, the proof needs to apply for any x. Invest in a modern book or take a class.

Do you have a wall?

x is arbitrary.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 04:10 AM
Originally Posted by chinglu1998
Einstein's proof relies on x = vt.

That's too bad, the proof needs to apply for any x. Invest in a modern book or take a class.

Einstein's proof is final.

Open up an ATM thread to prove your ATM ideas. I want to examine you.

macaw
2011-Jan-02, 04:14 AM
Einstein's proof is final.

No, it isn't, we have made tremendous progress in the last 106 years. You should try to catch up, the standard of proof is no longer the 1905 paper.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 04:17 AM
Originally Posted by chinglu1998
Einstein's proof is final.

No, it isn't, we have made tremendous progress in the last 106 years. You should try to catch up, the standard of proof is no longer the 1905 paper.

Fine. Use your modern theory to refute Einstein.

I will take his position on time dilation in this case.

If you refute Einstein, you will lose.

Let's go.

macaw
2011-Jan-02, 04:31 AM
Fine. Use your modern theory to refute Einstein.

Post 58. It doesn't "refute Einstein". It corrects your misinterpretation(s) of SR.

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 04:36 AM
Post 58. It doesn't "refute Einstein". It corrects your misinterpretation(s) of SR.

Excellent, we may all conclude t' = t/γ when the unprimed frame is stationary or do I need to correct you further?

chinglu1998
2011-Jan-02, 04:42 AM
Originally Posted by chinglu1998
Einstein's proof is final.

Originally Posted by macaw
No, it isn't, we have made tremendous progress in the last 106 years. You should try to catch up, the standard of proof is no longer the 1905 paper.Fine. Use your modern theory to refute Einstein.

I will take his position on time dilation in this case.

If you refute Einstein, you will lose.

Let's go.

Trout, why do you refuse to address this post? You told folks you have 25 publications.

macaw
2011-Jan-02, 05:36 AM
Excellent, we may all conclude t' = t/γ when the unprimed frame is stationary or do I need to correct you further?

Not "we", only you are making this elementary error. Not only in this forum but also here, in other forums (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2669577&postcount=186) and no one else who knows physics, makes such a mistake. Since \gamma>1, you keep getting time contraction instead of time dilation in your expression t' = t/γ .

Q7: Do you understand your mistake?

korjik
2011-Jan-02, 06:43 AM
No different this time.

First time I attacked SR based on time dilation being false.

Now, I am attacking it based on time dilation being true.

It is funny now how many are refuting time dilation.

Do you agree with time dilation?

You are still making the same errors.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt

tusenfem
2011-Jan-02, 11:57 AM
chinglu, I thought I would give you a chance to present your stuff once more, hoping that you learned something by now.
Unfortunately, you have so many basic misconceptions like in post 56:

So, it is natural t'=t γ.
But, when the unprimed frame is stationary as in my example, t'=t / γ

You cannot be serious here!!!

Or in post #59

Now, the moving clock is t'. Set v = 3/5c.
t' = t / ( √( 1 - 9/25) ) = t / ( √( 16/25) ) = t / ( 4/5) = (5/4) t
This means for every second of the rest clock, the moving clock beats (5/4) seconds or faster than the rest clock. The moving clock is supposed to beat slower.

Do you really think the last line is the right conclusion here? I don't think so.

You had your chance (twice) to show this claiml, you will not present this again on BAUT