The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The Lorentz Factor Conflict MMXI  (Read 4701 times)

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
The Lorentz Factor Conflict MMXI
« on: 07/05/2011 20:29:14 »
The Lorentz Factor Conflict MMXI
Thorntone E. ‘Butch’ Murray
May 2011

Problem
   When the results of length contraction calculations are applied in the Pythagorean theorem, length perpendicular to the direction of motion is unique for different velocities.This conflicts with the Special Relativity stipulation to the contrary.

Hypothesis
       “When one side of a triangle has a fixed length and the length of another side is changed the length of the remaining side must also change.” This property of triangles dictates that since the ‘light path’ the hypotenuse has a fixed length and the length of another side is changed with velocity the remaining side, length perpendicular to the direction of motion, must also change. This contradicts Special Relativity.
Additionally, at relative rest the length of the light path and length perpendicular to the direction of motion are equal. When in relative motion the light path becomes the hypotenuse of a right triangle. The hypotenuse of a right triangle is the longest side. The length of the light path and length perpendicular to the direction of motion are no longer equal. One or both of these two lengths has changed. Change of either of these lengths contradicts Special Relativity.

Data
The light path – c is fixed at 1
a2=c2-b2
a2=c2-.4352   a2=1-.189   a2=.811   a=.900
a2=c2-.52   a2=1-.25   a2=.75   a=.866
a2=c2-.9952  a2=1-.990   a2=.01  a=.1

The ‘light path’, the hypotenuse ‘c’, has a fixed length and the length of another side is changed with velocity the remaining side, length perpendicular to the direction of motion, must also change.

Conclusion
   The Lorentz factor is a corner stone of Special Relativity. It, however, either conflicts with the Special Relativity tenet that length perpendicular to the direction of motion does not change OR that the speed of light is constant OR both.

Prediction
   Chaos will ensue.



 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
The Lorentz Factor Conflict MMXI
« Reply #1 on: 07/05/2011 21:16:10 »
You are confused about the concept of frames of reference. The speed of light in a given reference frame is measured in m/s, where the meter sticks and clocks are stationary in that reference frame. If you measure the speed of light in two different reference frames, you get the same speed because you are measuring relative to a different set of meter sticks and clocks.

What you appear to be doing is measuring the speed of light in one reference frame by using meter sticks and clocks from a different reference frame.
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
The Lorentz Factor Conflict MMXI
« Reply #2 on: 08/05/2011 10:36:11 »
Hi Butch. I think Fraktalitee is correct - but to get further into why you really need to provide more details on your thought experiment - preferably with a diagram.  I reckon that once you do this you yourself will realise your error - BTW when going up against one of the most tested theorems of all time it is probably best to assume error until every possibly source is exhausted :-)
 

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
The Lorentz Factor Conflict MMXI
« Reply #3 on: 08/05/2011 14:24:07 »
Thank you both.

Everything referenced is as observed from relative rest.

Time is one unit. It doesn’t matter if it is seconds, hours, etc. but is the same unit throughout.

The body is one light unit square when at relative rest.

The right triangle is observed from relative rest with the body in uniform relative motion.

The right triangle:
The vertical side is the height of the body – one light unit in length
The horizontal side is the contracted length of the body
The hypotenuse is the light path for one unit of time - one light unit in length

SR dictates that the height of the body does not change. The speed of light is constant. Light therefore must traverse one light unit of length in one unit of time - one light unit of length.

That is the basic problem. The hypotenuse is the longest side of a right triangle. The vertical side and the hypotenuse cannot be the same length.

Thanks again,
Butch
 

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
The Lorentz Factor Conflict MMXI
« Reply #4 on: 08/05/2011 14:59:40 »
Forgot to mention:

By virtue of the constancy of the speed of light the hypotenuse will always be one light unit in length. In any triangle with one side of fixed length (the light path- hypotenuse), the change of length of another side (the horizontal leg that changes with relative velocity) will result in the change of length in the remaining side (the height of the body which according to SR does not change).

Butch
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
The Lorentz Factor Conflict MMXI
« Reply #5 on: 09/05/2011 12:16:58 »
Butch - you are still not making a lot of sense.  You need a diagram or a better description.
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
The Lorentz Factor Conflict MMXI
« Reply #6 on: 10/05/2011 12:24:10 »
The Lorentz Factor Conflict MMXI
Thorntone E. ‘Butch’ Murray
May 2011

Problem
   When the results of length contraction calculations are applied in the Pythagorean theorem, length perpendicular to the direction of motion is unique for different velocities.This conflicts with the Special Relativity stipulation to the contrary.

Hypothesis     
One of SRT’s postulate says that quantum of light moves
 in a straight line with constant speed c=1 in the vacuum.
So, in SRT we have one reference frame and it is vacuum.
Not hypothetical problem:
Can quantum of light have geometrical form of a triangle?
===.
S.
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
The Lorentz Factor Conflict MMXI
« Reply #7 on: 10/05/2011 12:46:26 »
Socratus - you are wrongly muddying the issue.  SR does not deal with quantised light .  SR is based on gedenken so it is acceptable to be hypothetical.  Reference frame in these terms does not refer to whether it is a vacuum but to whether the observer is in relative motion or accelerating. 

FYG a quick search on the entire original book give zero results for quantum, quanta, packet, discrete or wavelength.  Einstein did publish his Nobel prize winning paper on Photoelectric Effect in same year as SR - but SR most certainly does not engage with quantum theory of light 
 

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
The Lorentz Factor Conflict MMXI
« Reply #8 on: 10/05/2011 23:41:03 »
Unfortunately, I will probably not have time to dedicate to this project until this coming weekend.

Thank you,
Butch
 

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
The Lorentz Factor Conflict MMXI
« Reply #9 on: 13/05/2011 04:10:49 »
This revision (.01) addresses the issues of the previous version.
The Lorentz Factor Conflict MMXI.01

Problem
   As viewed from rest, length perpendicular to the direction of motion is changed when the uniform relative velocity of the body is changed. This conflicts with the Special Relativity stipulation to the contrary.

Hypothesis
“When one side of a triangle has a fixed length and the length of another side is changed the length of the remaining side must also change.” This property of triangles dictates that since the ‘light path’ the hypotenuse has a fixed length and the length of another side is changed with velocity the remaining side, length perpendicular to the direction of motion, must also change.

Data
Fig. A, Fig. B & Fig. C
All are as viewed from relative rest.
Time duration for all (proper time) = 1 second.

IIA, IIB, & IIC light path: fixed length = 1 light second. (Light speed for 1 second.)

IIIB & IIIC the distance (length) this end of the light path has advanced in the direction of motion at a chosen velocity >0, <1c for 1 second. (For appearance IIIB < IIIC)

Fig. A:  IA = height of body (length perpendicular to the direction of motion) at relative rest. Length = 1 light second

Fig. B:  IIB length = 1 light second
             IIIB length = .2 light seconds (.2c for 1 second)

Fig. C:  IIC length = 1 light second
             IIIC length = .6 light seconds (.6c for 1 second)

Fig B calculation:
a2+b2=c2   a2= c2- b2   IB2= IIB2- IIIB2   IB2=12-.22   IB2=1-.04
IB2=.96   IB=sqrt .96   IB=.98 light seconds

Fig C calculation:
a2+b2=c2   a2= c2- b2   IC2= IIC2- IIIC2   IC2=12-.62   IC2=1-.36
IC2=.64   IC=sqrt .64   IC=.8 light seconds

Length perpendicular to the direction of motion
IA at relative rest – 1 light second
IB at relative velocity .2c - .98 light seconds
IC at relative velocity .6c - .8 light seconds

Conclusion
   Observed from relative rest, if the relative velocity of a body is changed the length of the body perpendicular to the direction of motion must also change.

Prediction
   A new explanation for the results of the interferometer experiments by Michelson-Morley and others will be discovered.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
The Lorentz Factor Conflict MMXI
« Reply #10 on: 15/06/2011 01:10:47 »
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
The Lorentz Factor Conflict MMXI
« Reply #11 on: 15/06/2011 22:44:19 »
This still doesn't make any sense whatsoever. This is not surprising for a claim that attempts to refute Special Relativity. There is little doubt that one must have a serious misunderstanding of the science and mathematics involved to put forward such a claim.

 

The Naked Scientists Forum

The Lorentz Factor Conflict MMXI
« Reply #11 on: 15/06/2011 22:44:19 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length