0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
LENGTH CONTRACTION AND TIME DILATION CONTRADICT THE CONSTANCY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT - MMXIIIByThorntone E. “Butch” MurrayHouston, Texas, USA June 4, 2013CONTENTION:This contention is in strict adherence to and based exclusively on principles presented in the 1905 Theory of Special Relativity (SR) by Albert Einstein. The following mathematical analysis of an ordinary, unremarkable circumstance proves that time dilation and length contraction as presented in SR contradict a fundamental assumption of SR that the speed of light is constant and the same for all observers.
Alancalverd,Since this relates to the mathematical foundation of SR, the first paragraph of my last post is very probably as clear as it can get without maths. Sorry.
I'm competely unapologetic about being an experimental physicist.
You write “Although true, technically..”
I’ve switched to c for the speed of light and not “C” since the lowercase c is standard notation in relativity. You’ve mislabeled the time parameter in both frames. In S the time parameter is tau (the proper time read on the clock) and in S’ the time parameter is t.
Your confusion with the symbols led you to your erroneous conclusion.
These errors led you a succession of errors in the rest of your “derivation” which was wrong in the end.
You should have known that tens of thousands of physicists doing this derivation over every single day for a hundred years
tens of thousands of physicists doing this derivation over every single day for a hundred years would have picked u[ an error long before now if one actually existed
experimental errors would have been found a long time ago too.
what experimental result does your theory predict? What actually happens when you do the experiment?
QuoteI’ve switched to c for the speed of light and not “C” since the lowercase c is standard notation in relativity. You’ve mislabeled the time parameter in both frames. In S the time parameter is tau (the proper time read on the clock) and in S’ the time parameter is t.Quote from: butchmurrayYou must agree that as long as what is meant is understood, squabbling over terminology is nothing more than a distraction from real issues and a waste of time.No. I do not agree. For some reason you feel the need to have switched from the notation that I chose to use for the derivation for another convention, perhaps one that you prefer because you’re used to it. When made the change you also made errors that went along with it. When I pointed out to you what your error was, you then thought that the right approach was to get me to switch back to your notation again, that one that you used in the derivation where you made an error.Quote from: pmbYour confusion with the symbols led you to your erroneous conclusion.Your erroneous conclusion is that there is no length contraction, which has been demonstrated by experiment to be correct.Quote from: butchmurrayPlease show the instance(s) where confusion with the symbols led to an erroneous conclusion or state clearly this is your opinion.In this case your change in notation led you to make an error in the conversation that led to your mistake.The experiments constant with Lorentz contraction can easily be found all over the internet in journal articles and by looking at the literature that particle accelerator labs provide. I don’t do anybody’s work when they can do if for themselves.
You must agree that as long as what is meant is understood, squabbling over terminology is nothing more than a distraction from real issues and a waste of time.
Please show the instance(s) where confusion with the symbols led to an erroneous conclusion or state clearly this is your opinion.
This is not a theory. It elucidates a logic/mathematical error. There are no experiments. There are no predictions.