The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?  (Read 6541 times)

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #50 on: 09/08/2016 21:39:51 »
If you submit it, you have to do the math. That's it.

I've done all the maths that's needed to prove the case, assuming that it's read by someone who understands relativity.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #51 on: 10/08/2016 14:52:47 »
Just out of curiosity: you have an education website, but you have never attended any university level education?
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #52 on: 10/08/2016 19:33:54 »
Just out of curiosity: you have an education website, but you have never attended any university level education?

I gave university a miss because my work on linguistics (I specialised in generative semantics) was already ahead of anything that was being taught in any university, and that led me on into work on AGI (artificial general intelligence). University would have held my work back by several years for no useful gain, wasting my time on such things as Chomsky's broken linguistcs (with its shallow analysis and ludicrous ideas about universal grammar).

My website exists because I am disgusted with education systems which spend most of their time pretending to teach while not actually teaching anything (and which can also provide abysmal teaching when they do finally get round to it, making it impossible to succeed in some subjects unless you can afford private tutoring to make up for the deficiencies), so I've tried to show how things could be done more efficiently. I have shown how children can learn most of the essentials in a fraction of the time they take to do so in school, but when an education system has a fixed learning schedule and doesn't reward faster learning (because it repeatedly puts children in holding pens until the rest catch up again), there is no benefit from using more efficient methods other than for children working outside the system through home-schooling. [You may want to read up on Unschooling to see what happens when children aren't systematically taught anything at all and are just left to play most of the time - on average they end up with the same level of qualifications at the same age as schooled children, so that illustrates just how bad schools are. Peter Gray's blog at Psychology Today is the best starting place for reading up on this: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn - I'm not a fan of Unschooling, but want to see something half way between that and schooling so that all children can have the best of both worlds and where they have the freedom to walk away from bad teaching and to find their own way through the work without wasting their childhood on the empty garbage that's currently inflicted on them.] I was hoping that other people might join in the effort to build the site properly, but no one has done so and the whole thing will soon be rendered completely redundant by AGI which will provide the same kind of teaching more directly while interacting intelligently with learners.

Now, what point were you trying to make by asking about this? One of the biggest problems afflicting society is that people worship status and qualifications and don't value reason. Dunning and Kruger have made this even worse by giving qualified "experts" further excuse not to bother checking that they've built their knowledge upon a sound base. Errors can occasionally be found which persist for decades or even centuries without any of the teachers or indoctrinated learners ever stopping to check. If someone does spot an error, they are simply shouted down and the establishment blunders blindly on regardless, overconfident about their rightness because they are "experts" who can't be wrong.

In this thread, I've identified such an error, and it's a monumental whopper of an error. How do you judge this though? You simply look to see if I'm saying something that goes against the "experts", and when you determine that I am, you decide that the "experts" must be right because they are "experts" and they couldn't possibly all have made the same mistake for over a hundred years. In this particular case though, they're failing to read diagrams correctly, not realising the relationship between a diagram showing two space dimensions at a fixed point in time (from the point of view of a specific frame of reference) and a Spacetime diagram which shows only one space dimension with time shown vertically, each slice showing a fixed point in time (from the point of view of a specific frame of reference). A horizontal slice of a Spacetime diagram is functionally identical to a straight line drawn through one of my diagrams: if two things are not in the same place in the diagram in one frame of reference, they cannot be in the same place in any frame of reference because they are at different Spacetime locations. When you see a parallelogram with sides that don't align with the rails in Frame A, any method of converting to a Frame B view of the same objects which shows the sides parallel with the rails is violating fundamental rules, and yet that is what the "experts" are clearly doing here. They are naively assuming that all frames of reference behave the same way, so when they shift from Frame A to Frame B they simply recalculate the positions, lengths and alignments of objects from scratch on the mistaken basis that all frames behave the same way, and in doing so they introduce distortions. They must see the misalignment in one frame, but they then carry out a translation to the other frame and the misalignment is magically gone, but they never stop to ask themselves how this can happen when they wouldn't accept the same kind of mismatch when handling Spacetime diagrams. The simple truth of it is that the translation method they're using is faulty because it's based on a false belief that all frames behave the same way.

The correct way to translate between frames is to stick with the original Frame A calculations and then convert using the ref-frame camera method where you change the clock synchronisations and run through events noting where things are when the local clock at any point hits the target time for the new frame. This is a much more computation-intense way of carrying out the translation from one frame to another, but the end result is that you get a correct translation instead of one that introduces distortions. It's clear to me now that no one has ever done these translations correctly because they've simply relied blindly on an incorrect assumption that all frames work identically. I am now writing a program to do such translations properly. I have attached a drawing showing the square on a rocket moving NW (north is up) at relativistic speed and the three different shapes it will have when viewed from frames A, B and B'. I haven't used accurate numbers for them, but it's the general shapes I want you to look at. The top row shows the kinds of shapes I calculate for them, while the bottom row shows the shapes that the "experts" would calculate for it, and it's with the middle one that you see the key difference. They simply recalculate the shape by assuming that Frame B works like Frame A, but I run the events in Frame A instead and convert by "taking a photograph" for Frame B as the local pixel clocks hit the target time for taking that picture with all clocks synchronised for Frame B.
« Last Edit: 10/08/2016 19:51:39 by David Cooper »
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #53 on: 10/08/2016 21:09:14 »
Now, what point were you trying to make by asking about this?
I was curious, given that you displayed ignorance of the form of journal articles.

Like you said, people often value things other than reason. Often, the form of journal articles are what they are for a reason. Sometimes these are good reasons, sometimes these are bad.

Similarly, the details of the transformations from one system of coordinates to another are what they are for a reason. You are free to believe what you want to believe, but you should know that you will be held to a high standard if you want to publish your work and that standard will include at least recognizing what trained physicists expect from a transformation from one system of coordinates to another. This will include including the time coordinate in all translations.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #54 on: 10/08/2016 23:19:26 »
Now, what point were you trying to make by asking about this?
I was curious, given that you displayed ignorance of the form of journal articles.

I've looked up a few things and now see that having letters after your name isn't crucial as they don't tell the reviewers who you are (although you still have to get past the first wall of persuading them to send your paper to be reviewed). That makes the system a more fair than I'd expected it to be. It's also possible to include software along with the paper, or a link to a place from which it can be downloaded, and that makes it considerably easier to show them what's going on.

Quote
Similarly, the details of the transformations from one system of coordinates to another are what they are for a reason.

Indeed, and it's a bad reason - it's based on a belief that different frames all work the same way, but I've shown that a person in Frame B sending things along Rail B will observe them to warp and to do so more the faster they go. Any system for doing the transformations which doesn't find that result is producing errors, hiding this warping with distortions which precisely cancel out the warping that should be there.

Quote
You are free to believe what you want to believe, but you should know that you will be held to a high standard if you want to publish your work and that standard will include at least recognizing what trained physicists expect from a transformation from one system of coordinates to another. This will include including the time coordinate in all translations.

I am the one who has the high standards here, but there's never any guarantee that people with lower standards are capable of recognising that because they tend to reject anything they disagree with instead of checking it out carefully, and it's not surprising that they do this: they are bombarded with rubbish which they need to reject without wasting time on it, and yet it means they are likely to miss those extremely rare things that look wrong because they go so much against expectations but which happen to be right. There is a high chance that they'll simply reject my proof in the same way that you have without thinking it through.

I've attached a new diagram showing the asymmetry in the way different frames behave. For the top picture, you need to imagine Frame A being stationary while Frame B is racing up the screen, and the shape shown has no sides parallel with Rail B or perpendicular to it. This shape (not drawn very accurately this time because all you need to agree with is that none of its sides are parallel with Rail B or perpendicular to the track) is the one that the square on the rocket must have when viewed from Frame A, and it's the shape that squares on Train B must show too as they are co-moving with the rocket.

For the bottom picture, we are seeing an equivalent square on Train A while looking from Frame B, and two of the sides are parallel to Rail A. According to relativity (both Special Relativity and Lorentz Ether Theory [in their current form]) those shapes should be a mirror image of each other, but they aren't. It's easy to work out what the shape of the rocket square will look like from Frame A because you simply apply length contraction at an angle and all four edges end up tilting relative to the north-south and east-west lines. At no point have you dared to commit yourself to stating whether you agree with it or not, but you ought to.

It's harder to work out the shape of a Train A square as viewed from Frame B, but using the ref-frame camera method you do the following. First you find the Frame A shape which is a rectangle, the length-contraction applying in the east-west direction. The next step is to synchronise clocks for Frame B, pick a time to "take a photo", then run all the clocks as you imagine the shape moving east along the rail. Whenever a pixel clock hits the target time, you copy whatever's at that pixel to a new diagram, and that means you'll transfer the whole southern edge in one go (because the clocks for all those pixels read the same time as each other), then you move the shape east a bit, then you work your way up the sides, each bit being copied further to the right, and eventually you reach the top edge and transfer the whole of it in one go. The only other thing you have to do is fix the north-south width of this shape to make sure the correct length contraction is being applied in that direction, but it will certainly look like the picture I've drawn for it in regard to the direction the tilted edges tilt and in the fact that the other two edges must remain parallel to Rail A.

I don't know which mistake other people have been making with this, but they are producing shapes which are mirror images of each other, either by ignoring the necessity of the square on the rocket looking the same shape as the squares on Train B when viewed from Frame A (and therefore having a contradiction in their results which they failed to notice), or they're calculating the right shape for it and are then making the mistake of calculating the shape of a square on Train A as viewed from Frame B by treating Frame B like a preferred frame and applying length contraction to that square at an angle in the way the square on the rocket is treated when calculating it from Frame A (while also failing to notice the incompatible alignments when they change frame). Either way, they're making a mistake - the two shapes should not be a mirror image of each other because the way frames behave is not symmetrical. The only reason we've missed this for a hundred years is that we trusted Lorentz, Einstein and the other pioneers of relativity - they failed to explore this properly but gave the impression that they had, and everyone has just believed them ever since without bothering to check thoroughly. I believed them too: I only stumbled upon it by accident while having a conversation with an Einsteinist about rotating discs.
« Last Edit: 10/08/2016 23:58:30 by David Cooper »
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #55 on: 11/08/2016 12:03:08 »


Hi Jeffrey,

, but if you imagine the universe as being contained in the skin of an expanding bubble, the absolute frame of reference is tied to the centre of the bubble, which is a point not found inside the universe, and no frame of reference inside the universe can be the absolute frame. At every point inside the universe there is a preferred frame of reference which is different from the preferred frame at any other point, but they are all preferred frames of reference regardless, being the frame at that point which matches up closest to the absolute frame. On the local scale though, such as within our solar system, you can consider that all points in that local space have the same frame as their preferred frame of reference, even if that isn't quite true, because the errors will be too small to have any relevance.
   As I see it there is an absolute frame of reference at the center of the universe where the big bang took place. The expanding bubble of energy exploded along the bubble simultaneously billions of times to form the center of the galaxies.  the gravitational field from all the galaxies reach the center which is 13.78 billion light years from the surface of the universe. At the same time a sphere of 27.56 billion years is the outer sphere of the universe. This is a perfect sphere as well.
   So you are correct in my opinion that we have one absolutely stationary point which is not within our visible universe. It seems to me that everything else is distorted common mode but relative frame of references depends upon the gravitational field. The sun is a relative reference. The earth is another relative reference. Everything within a preferred frame of reference is distorted equally but we see a sphere as a sphere because we are distorted as well.
   
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #56 on: 11/08/2016 12:11:58 »
If you submit it, you have to do the math. That's it.

I've done all the maths that's needed to prove the case, assuming that it's read by someone who understands relativity.
   Relativity is a best fit approximation to reality. Absolute reality has to take into account the distortions produced by all the speeds relative to the absolute reference point. This includes how fast the universe is rotating.
  The beauty of relativity is that so many of the distortions are common mode that a perfect sphere appears to us  as a perfect sphere but in truth it is an ellipsoid.  Fortunately the gravitational field of the Earth tends to equalize the distortions and we cannot readily measure them. So the real world from an absolute sense is different but upon our reference plane if seems to us that a sphere is a sphere. So you can write equations and feel you have solved a particular problem but you are dealing with a best fit approximation.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #57 on: 11/08/2016 14:21:48 »
Indeed, and it's a bad reason - it's based on a belief that different frames all work the same way, but I've shown that a person in Frame B sending things along Rail B will observe them to warp and to do so more the faster they go. Any system for doing the transformations which doesn't find that result is producing errors, hiding this warping with distortions which precisely cancel out the warping that should be there.
I know that you believe that. But any physicist who looks at your argument will reject it because you have not actually discussed the reference frames. All reference frames used in the Special Theory of Relativity have their own time coordinate and you do not include this in your reasoning. Until you do, no physicist will take your argument seriously.

You are free to believe that the time coordinate is not important. However, since the people who work with the theory have all gone through training that demonstrates to them that the theory does not work properly without taking the time coordinate into account, they have a reason for rejecting your argument.


Quote
At no point have you dared to commit yourself to stating whether you agree with it or not, but you ought to.
As someone trained in the use of the Special Theory of Relativity, I can't recognize your claims as an intelligible part of that theory, since they do not use the theory properly. Since your claims do not include transformations to the time coordinate, they do not meet the standard I have been trained to expect for such work. Because of this, I can't recognize your argument as one that is about the Special Theory of Relativity, instead it is an argument about David Cooper's Theory of Relativity.

Quote
The next step is to synchronise clocks for Frame B, pick a time to "take a photo", then run all the clocks as you imagine the shape moving east along the rail.
According to the Special Theory of Relativity, one cannot have a frame without a set definition of synchronized clocks. These clocks will not be synchronized to the clocks in the other frames in your example.

Again, you are free to use David Cooper's Theory of Relativity. However, since you show that it is not consistent, most people will continue to use the Special Theory of Relativity.

Quote
The only reason we've missed this for a hundred years is that we trusted Lorentz, Einstein and the other pioneers of relativity - they failed to explore this properly but gave the impression that they had, and everyone has just believed them ever since without bothering to check thoroughly.
Given the vast literature on relativity theory, including the prevalence of homework problems combining reference frames and the decades of crank attempts to deny relativity theory, it is extremely unlikely that someone would miss this kind of combination.

Anyone who would work through such a scenario would be trained to work from the actual Lorentz transformations, not merely use purely spatial length contractions. This means that they would include the time coordinate in their work and when considering how something looks at a certain time, they would have to consider where everything looks at the time of each frame. Since transformation the time from one frame to another depends on position, this can change the shape of objects from one frame to another.
Quote
I believed them too: I only stumbled upon it by accident while having a conversation with an Einsteinist about rotating discs.
That one person you had a conversation with may have been mistaken. Reading your original post, it is not clear what you believe is the position on rotation taken by the Special Theory of Relativity. Talking to one person is a poor form of education. Did you read about rotation in any textbook on the Special Theory of Relativity?

How were you educated on the Special Theory of Relativity? You keep saying that you have done the work to convince, "someone who understands relativity,"  but you do not want to use the Special Theory of Relativity, you only want to use length contraction. Someone who understands the theory would like to see the theory applied in an argument that purports to be demonstrating a contradiction in the theory.
« Last Edit: 11/08/2016 14:27:53 by PhysBang »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #58 on: 11/08/2016 20:43:57 »
I know that you believe that. But any physicist who looks at your argument will reject it because you have not actually discussed the reference frames.

Sure! I haven't discussed Frames A, A', B and B' and haven't described the speeds at which they move relative to each other and the direction they're moving in relative to each other, so no one could possibly make sense of what I've said, apart from people who understand relativity and recognise that I have actually discussed those frames and defined how they move relative to each other such that they can visualise the entire setup. I don't know why you're incapable of doing so, and I don't know why you imagine that you're qualified to take part in this conversation when your understanding of the subject is so lacking.

Quote
All reference frames used in the Special Theory of Relativity have their own time coordinate and you do not include this in your reasoning. Until you do, no physicist will take your argument seriously.

When I describe the scene from Frame A, I'm describing Frame A at a single point in time for Frame A - that is a time coordinate, and you can give it any number you like. Let's call it 0 (zero). If we then run events, we redraw the scene for time=1 and move all the things that are moving through Frame A to their new postitions. We can then do it again for time=2 and move all the objects that are moving through Frame A again. We can run all these pictures as a video too, and time will tick up as we do so. I don't know how you were incapable of working out where time comes into this because it should be obvious to anyone with even a modicum of education in the subject. With Spacetime diagrams it's the same, but they normally (due to the limitations of 2D paper) only show one space dimension, each horizontal slice through the diagram having a different time coordinate from the one above and the one below (in the time of the selected frame), while all parts of that horizontal slice have the same time coordinate by that frame. The difference with my diagrams is that they show two space dimensions, so the running of time would be shown by replacing one diagram (one layer of a Spacetime diagram) with another diagram (the next layer up), and the time coordinate is incremented as you run through the diagrams. You can imagine stacking these diagrams in a pile with time running upwards, and then they are orientated the same way as Spacetime diagrams, only with two space dimensions set out in each layer instead of one. When you switch to another frame, you are simply taking a slice through that pile at an angle, cutting through each layer at those points where the times for the new frame are identical, then you warp everything to make the new slice horizontal while keeping the time dimension straight up and down (just like changing frame in the interactive diagram half way down my webpage on relativity). It is astonishing that anyone should find it hard to understand this given that it is all bog standard stuff that anyone who knows the basics of relativity should be able to follow with ease. Look at the interactive diagrams on my webpage - every single one of them have a counter underneath which represents the time coordinate.

Quote
You are free to believe that the time coordinate is not important.

Even Lewis Carroll would have struggled to make up a conversation this surreal! Time coordinate not important? Who the blazes thinks it's not important? What do you imagine my diagrams show if there's no time coordinate tied to them? This is getting into deeper and deeper farce now. Do you really have a qualification in this stuff? Who trained you? You attack me for discussing something I understand but don't have a qualification in, but there you are apparently with a qualification in something that you manifestly don't understand! How could that have happened?

Quote
However, since the people who work with the theory have all gone through training that demonstrates to them that the theory does not work properly without taking the time coordinate into account, they have a reason for rejecting your argument.

I would hope they actually have qualifications that genuinely relate to the level of their understanding and that they can see exactly how time is tied up in my descriptions of things.

Quote
Quote
At no point have you dared to commit yourself to stating whether you agree with it or not, but you ought to.
As someone trained in the use of the Special Theory of Relativity, I can't recognize your claims as an intelligible part of that theory, since they do not use the theory properly. Since your claims do not include transformations to the time coordinate, they do not meet the standard I have been trained to expect for such work. Because of this, I can't recognize your argument as one that is about the Special Theory of Relativity, instead it is an argument about David Cooper's Theory of Relativity.

Whoever trained you, I would strongly recommend that you go back and demand a refund from them. It is absolutely appalling that they can award a qualification that leads you into imagining that you have been trained in the use of the Special Theory of Relativity when you have such a shallow grasp of the subject. It is outrageous that my argument is being attacked by someone who is trying to pull rank on the basis of qualifications when he can't follow the simplest of descriptions of how objects appear in a single frame of reference at a single point in time (by the time of that frame) as they move at different speeds in different directions, to the point that he can't even commit himself to saying how a square (when at rest in the frame) will appear once it is moving at relativistic speed in a dircection not aligned with its edges. That is the most astonishing failure I have ever encountered when dealing with someone who claims to be qualified in this subject.

Quote
Quote
The next step is to synchronise clocks for Frame B, pick a time to "take a photo", then run all the clocks as you imagine the shape moving east along the rail.
According to the Special Theory of Relativity, one cannot have a frame without a set definition of synchronized clocks. These clocks will not be synchronized to the clocks in the other frames in your example.

And your problem is? The clocks in my ref-frame camera can be set to different synchronisations depending on which frame you want to capture a picture for, and there is a different pattern of syncronisation for every frame of reference. If you set them to by synchronised for frame B, you can then run events until a target time for Frame B appears on a pixel's clock, and when it does, you copy the local content of that part of space to the "photograph" that you're trying to take. Once all the clocks have reached that point (which they don't all do at once, but progressively as you run the events by the rules of Frame A), out comes a perfect Frame B photo of the action at a specific Frame B time.

Quote
Again, you are free to use David Cooper's Theory of Relativity. However, since you show that it is not consistent, most people will continue to use the Special Theory of Relativity.

Everything I'm describing relates directly to SR and to LET. Your failure to recognise that shows that you are not qualified to discuss this stuff.

Quote
Given the vast literature on relativity theory, including the prevalence of homework problems combining reference frames and the decades of crank attempts to deny relativity theory, it is extremely unlikely that someone would miss this kind of combination.

And yet they have all missed it, and when you realise how little understanding of the subject most people with qualifications in the subject actually have, you begin to understand how this sorry state of affairs has come about.

Quote
Anyone who would work through such a scenario would be trained to work from the actual Lorentz transformations, not merely use purely spatial length contractions.

Anyone who knows their stuff knows that all that's needed for analysing this are the simple tools of LET. If a problem shows up when applying length contraction in the way that I have demonstrated happens, that problem will not go away for SR, no matter how many irrelevant things you try to throw at it to try to hide the problem.

Quote
This means that they would include the time coordinate in their work and when considering how something looks at a certain time, they would have to consider where everything looks at the time of each frame.

How do you imagine the ref-frame camera is supposed to work if it doesn't handle time? The program (which I've now finished designing and will get on with writing the code after I've finished responding to your ludicrous objections) will not only show up the length contraction asymmetries, but it will also show up any similar issues with time dilation if there are any. It is possible though that the time dilation numbers will always be right even if the length contractions are calculated incorrectly by people using the wrong method (my initial investigations into this suggest that no difference will show up there), but we'll see what happens once it's up and running.

Quote
Since transformation the time from one frame to another depends on position, this can change the shape of objects from one frame to another.

Which is exactly why you see the changes in the observed shapes of a square as observed from different frames, as I've shown you in the last two diagrams I attached to posts here.

Quote
That one person you had a conversation with may have been mistaken.

He was mistaken alright - he was arguing your side of things, but we were discussing a different issue. I just happened to think about the vectors at point N on the disk and the length contractions not being related to the length contraction for the line that the vectors describe in the same way as the vectors relte to that line. The combined length contraction is much stronger. The anomaly there then transferred through to cases with no rotation, and it's come as a massive surprise to me that the effect is so easy to find when you look for it.

Quote
Reading your original post, it is not clear what you believe is the position on rotation taken by the Special Theory of Relativity. Talking to one person is a poor form of education. Did you read about rotation in any textbook on the Special Theory of Relativity?

I was the one educating him - he was just robotiaclly spouting the standard piffle while being incapable of visualising anything (which is par for the course in this field).

Quote
How were you educated on the Special Theory of Relativity?

I started out by trying to work everything out for myself, which is how I found a different way of calculating length contraction and time dilation which produces identical numbers. I simply looked to see where the light was actually going, and I found that when the MMX moves at 0.866c, the light following the arm perpendicular to the motion of the MMX is actually moving at an angle of 60 degrees forward of that through space, and time dilation comes directly out of this because it takes twice as long to complete the trip along that arm and back. For light to take the same length of time to complete the journey on the other arm of the MMX, the length had to be shortened to half (which I had heard about before), so the length contraction and time dilation are directly related. I then found out that I had rediscovered LET, and I read up on SR after that and saw that it uses exactly the same rules of length contraction and time dilation in relation to how things present themselves in Euclidean planes. If an asymmetry is found in the way things behave in different frames in those Euclidean planes, it necessarily applies both to LET and SR and there is no getting out of that - I have found exactly such an asymmetry, and that dictates that there is a preferred frame of reference which we should be able to identify.

Quote
You keep saying that you have done the work to convince, "someone who understands relativity,"  but you do not want to use the Special Theory of Relativity, you only want to use length contraction. Someone who understands the theory would like to see the theory applied in an argument that purports to be demonstrating a contradiction in the theory.

To see the asymmetry in the way frames behave, is is sufficient to use length contraction. If you want to prove that a boat is three metres long, it is not important to consider its mass, colour, manufacturer, crew requirements etc. - what you do is you stick to the minimum amount of stuff necessary to show that the boat is three metres long. Length contraction is a key part of SR, and what I have shown is that that this key part is not compatible with the idea that all frames of reference behave the same way.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #59 on: 11/08/2016 21:11:59 »
We can say that

L = cos(asin(v/c))
T = 1/cos(asin(v/c))

Where L is a multiplier for length and T is a multiplier for time.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #60 on: 11/08/2016 21:32:02 »
I don't know why you're incapable of doing so, and I don't know why you imagine that you're qualified to take part in this conversation when your understanding of the subject is so lacking.
I imagine that I am qualified because I took several courses in grad school on relativity theory. It might be that I, all my professors, and all my fellow students were under some sort of delusion. You are free to believe that.

Quote
When you switch to another frame, you are simply taking a slice through that pile at an angle, cutting through each layer at those points where the times for the new frame are identical, then you warp everything to make the new slice horizontal while keeping the time dimension straight up and down (just like changing frame in the interactive diagram half way down my webpage on relativity). It is astonishing that anyone should find it hard to understand this given that it is all bog standard stuff that anyone who knows the basics of relativity should be able to follow with ease. Look at the interactive diagrams on my webpage - every single one of them have a counter underneath which represents the time coordinate.
It is not clear that your representation of how things appear is taking the correct "slice through that pile at an angle", since you at no point do any translation of time coordinates.

Quote
Time coordinate not important? Who the blazes thinks it's not important? What do you imagine my diagrams show if there's no time coordinate tied to them? This is getting into deeper and deeper farce now. Do you really have a qualification in this stuff? Who trained you? You attack me for discussing something I understand but don't have a qualification in, but there you are apparently with a qualification in something that you manifestly don't understand! How could that have happened?
I'm not attacking you, I'm merely pointing out that you never do a translation that includes a time coordinate. You are free to believe that this is not important.

Quote
Whoever trained you, I would strongly recommend that you go back and demand a refund from them. It is absolutely appalling that they can award a qualification that leads you into imagining that you have been trained in the use of the Special Theory of Relativity when you have such a shallow grasp of the subject. It is outrageous that my argument is being attacked by someone who is trying to pull rank on the basis of qualifications when he can't follow the simplest of descriptions of how objects appear in a single frame of reference at a single point in time (by the time of that frame) as they move at different speeds in different directions, to the point that he can't even commit himself to saying how a square (when at rest in the frame) will appear once it is moving at relativistic speed in a dircection not aligned with its edges. That is the most astonishing failure I have ever encountered when dealing with someone who claims to be qualified in this subject.
You are being very defensive and I am sorry that you feel that you are being attacked. I am merely trying to get you to produce the most rigorous version of your argument. It is true that I believe that your argument will disappear when rigor is applied. It is also true that I do not think that you will believe me if I work out the details.
Quote
Everything I'm describing relates directly to SR and to LET. Your failure to recognise that shows that you are not qualified to discuss this stuff.
You are free to believe this. I believe that you are missing something crucial. I hope that it is not defensiveness that prevents you from working out your argument in all the required details.

Quote
Quote
Anyone who would work through such a scenario would be trained to work from the actual Lorentz transformations, not merely use purely spatial length contractions.

Anyone who knows their stuff knows that all that's needed for analysing this are the simple tools of LET. If a problem shows up when applying length contraction in the way that I have demonstrated happens, that problem will not go away for SR, no matter how many irrelevant things you try to throw at it to try to hide the problem.
If one looks at the history of the so-called "paradoxes" of the Special Theory of Relativity, you will find that most of them do not appear problematic when the relativity of simultaneity is properly taken into account. In all cases, properly applying the Lorentz transformations is crucial to understanding what happens in the Special Theory of Relativity, since one can produce incorrect results if one applies only a part of the transformations and not all the transformations.

Again, you are free to believe what you want. I am only trying to report how your argument will be received by someone who has training in the relevant physics.
Quote
How do you imagine the ref-frame camera is supposed to work if it doesn't handle time? The program (which I've now finished designing and will get on with writing the code after I've finished responding to your ludicrous objections) will not only show up the length contraction asymmetries, but it will also show up any similar issues with time dilation if there are any. It is possible though that the time dilation numbers will always be right even if the length contractions are calculated incorrectly by people using the wrong method (my initial investigations into this suggest that no difference will show up there), but we'll see what happens once it's up and running.
If your calculations do not recognize that translations to the time coordinate depend upon the location, then you will be presenting incorrect pictures, since you will not be presenting simultaneous points.

Quote
I then found out that I had rediscovered LET, and I read up on SR after that and saw that it uses exactly the same rules of length contraction and time dilation in relation to how things present themselves in Euclidean planes.
Have you consulted textbooks on the Special Theory of Relativity?

Quote
To see the asymmetry in the way frames behave, is is sufficient to use length contraction. If you want to prove that a boat is three metres long, it is not important to consider its mass, colour, manufacturer, crew requirements etc. - what you do is you stick to the minimum amount of stuff necessary to show that the boat is three metres long. Length contraction is a key part of SR, and what I have shown is that that this key part is not compatible with the idea that all frames of reference behave the same way.
You are free to believe this. As I said before, anyone with training in SR will assume, even if they do not immediately recognize your error, that you are presenting an artefact of ignoring the change in the time coordinate. If you do not go through the rigor of actually doing the transformations to justify your argument, then your argument will be justifiably rejected on the basis that you have not done the work to establish your case.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #61 on: 11/08/2016 21:35:17 »
Then 2*pi*L will show a contraction of the circumference of the unit circle due to gravitation during relativistic rotation. Quite a neat way to do this.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #62 on: 11/08/2016 22:16:20 »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #63 on: 11/08/2016 22:34:43 »
Since the radial direction is constantly changing and itself undergoing acceleration then there can be an argument for reduction in radial length as well as reduction in circumference during relativistic rotation. Rebuttals on a postcard to ...
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #64 on: 11/08/2016 22:42:29 »
The question is how fast does an object have to be rotating so that to the rest of the universe the radius appears to have contracted so that the mass is within its own Schwarzschild radius?
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #65 on: 11/08/2016 23:00:05 »
This conversation reminds me of this recent article: https://aeon.co/ideas/what-i-learned-as-a-hired-consultant-for-autodidact-physicists

This is just the Dunning Kruger thing making you overconfident again. You may have done a lot of learning, but you're incapable of applying it unless the argument is presented to you in exactly the form you've been taught to understand it in. As soon as it's expressed in a clearer form designed to enable untrained people to understand it too, for some bizarre reason, you can't hack it.

You're still too scared to state whether you agree that a square which was initially at rest in Frame A with its edges aligned north-south and east-west and which has subsequently been accelerated up to relativistic speed in the direction NE (without at any stage being rotated) will now be contracted in such a way that none of its edges are aligned north-south or east-west. What is your training worth if you can't even commit yourself to an answer on that simple point? Woeful!

You're also too scared to state whether you agree that squares on the roof of Train B should, if under no stress, take up the same shape as a square painted on a rocket that is co-moving with the train. Woeful again - what an embarrassment to the people who gave you your qualificatiions!

You're also too scared to discuss the shape of an unstressed square on the roof of Train A as viewed from a Frame B observer. That's a tougher task as it involves a frame change, but you claim to be capable of doing this. I've shown you the shape that I get, but you won't say anything at all about the shape that you would get, if you really knew how to calculate it. Not quite so woeful this time, as it's a harder test, but you should be able to give it a go at least. But no - you won't, and you won't because you're out of your depth.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #66 on: 11/08/2016 23:25:56 »
Here's another clear way to show that I'm right. The square moving NE has none of its edges aligned north-south or east-west, so how is it going to fit nicely between Rail B and B2 which are aligned precisely east-west? Every point of the rhombus that is the Frame A view of this moving shape is shown in its correct position in the two space dimensions for the same instant in time by Frame A's clock, and only someone who doesn't understand relativity could say it's a simultaneity issue that prevents the edges of this square from lining up with the rails. If you're moving with that square, you still think the edges are aligned north-south and west-east, but you'll see that they are not alligned parallel to and perpendicular to the rails in that frame: the alignment of the rails in that frame is not east-west, and the same applies to any observer travelling on a square aligned at the same angle as the rocket and dangled between the rails, if the gap between the rails has been adjusted to allow it to fit there. That observer will then see two of the corners touching the rails at either side, but he will be able to put his arm in the gaps between the edges and the rails without being harmed while you would claim he couldn't do this because the difference in alignment is an error in his judgement of simultaneity. You (physbang) still won't get it though, because you've been miseducated and you have never learned how to think for yourself.
« Last Edit: 11/08/2016 23:28:03 by David Cooper »
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #67 on: 12/08/2016 02:13:28 »
This is just the Dunning Kruger thing making you overconfident again. You may have done a lot of learning, but you're incapable of applying it unless the argument is presented to you in exactly the form you've been taught to understand it in. As soon as it's expressed in a clearer form designed to enable untrained people to understand it too, for some bizarre reason, you can't hack it.
I'm glad you are being so pleasant and attempting to diagnose me. It speaks very highly of your character.
Quote
You're still too scared to state whether you agree that a square which was initially at rest in Frame A with its edges aligned north-south and east-west and which has subsequently been accelerated up to relativistic speed in the direction NE (without at any stage being rotated) will now be contracted in such a way that none of its edges are aligned north-south or east-west. What is your training worth if you can't even commit yourself to an answer on that simple point? Woeful!
I am so glad that you have made the decision to insult me rather than actually work through your argument in detail. It again speaks very highly of your character.
Every point of the rhombus that is the Frame A view of this moving shape is shown in its correct position in the two space dimensions for the same instant in time by Frame A's clock, and only someone who doesn't understand relativity could say it's a simultaneity issue that prevents the edges of this square from lining up with the rails.
It is rather the reverse: the relativity of simultaneity ensures that the train wheels continue to stay lined up with the rails.

But don't trust me: work it out for yourself, you are the expert here.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #68 on: 12/08/2016 13:40:44 »
Relativistic rotational speed at the circumference of a disc implies a gradient of relativistic mass increase from the centre of the disc outwards. With length contraction of the radius this indicates a longer Schwarzschild radius due to increase in mass. Therefore a larger mass black hole.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #69 on: 12/08/2016 17:55:24 »
I'm glad you are being so pleasant and attempting to diagnose me. It speaks very highly of your character.

Nice - you can throw words like "crank" around, but I'm not allowed to tell you what your problem is.

Quote
Quote
You're still too scared to state whether you agree that a square which was initially at rest in Frame A with its edges aligned north-south and east-west and which has subsequently been accelerated up to relativistic speed in the direction NE (without at any stage being rotated) will now be contracted in such a way that none of its edges are aligned north-south or east-west. What is your training worth if you can't even commit yourself to an answer on that simple point? Woeful!
I am so glad that you have made the decision to insult me rather than actually work through your argument in detail. It again speaks very highly of your character.

Where's the insult in there? Your tactics of avoiding the issues aren't the most attractive thing on show here.

Quote
It is rather the reverse: the relativity of simultaneity ensures that the train wheels continue to stay lined up with the rails.

Is it going to be like this with the peer review people too? Do I have to spend many pages teaching them the basics too before I can introduce them to my proof? How did physics get itself into this mess! I've told you how these diagrams work: they show points plotted out in two space dimensions with the time being identical for each point (by the clock of that frame), but it just doesn't register with you. How far do I have to go before it dawns on you that your interpretation of them is ridiculous? Let me put you into the diagram (see the picture attached below) so that you can experience the events at specific points as objects pass you by. Here we have a parallelogram moving NE at relativistic speed which has contracted it in that direction. When it was at rest, before it was accelerated to this speed, it was a rectangle (made of four squares stuck together), the long side aligned east-west. It has not been rotated at any stage. The parallelogram shape that we see in the diagram is its Frame A shape when it's moving NE through Frame A at relativistic speed. The rails are like Rail B and B2, moving directly north at the same speed as the north vector for the movement of the parallelogram, so they move up the diagram at the same speed. Note: I have made the rails much narrower in order to keep the size of the diagram down - this allows me to use a much shorter rectangle.

Now, I want you to stand at point X and imagine this shape and the rails passing you. The parts of the parallelogram which the blue arrow passes through must all pass through point X, so you will meet them there. The parts of the track that pass you though will be the ones that are directly to the south of point X. In what order do you think you'll meet the different objects? Well, the first thing to reach you will be the longer leading edge of the parallelogram. The second point of sigificance to pass you will be the longer trailing edge of the parallelogram. Soon after that you will meet Rail B2, and lastly you will meet Rail B.

Now do the same thing at point Y: Rail B2 passes you first, then the longer leading edge of the parallelogram, then the longer trailing edge, and then rail B. Now do the same at point Z: Rail B2 passes you first, then Rail B, then the shorter leading edge of the parallelogram, and lastly the longer trailing edge of the parallelogram.

Now, can you see the problem with your stance on all this? You imagine that if you jump to a Frame B or Frame B' view of things, the whole rectangle will magically fit between the rails, but that would mean that a Frame B or Frame B' observer would see the observer at X or Z experiencing events in a different order from the one they experienced them in when viewed from Frame A. That kind of reordering of events is impossible.

To spell this out more clearly for you (because you clearly need all the help you can get), I want you to imagine that when you're standing at point X, Y or Z you are holding a piece of chalk which you're going to use to mark the objects as they pass you, but it's a special stick of chalk which is partly coloured, the top part being red and the rest being white. So, there you are at point X, marking the paralellogram with the chalk. The parallelogram wears away most of your stick of chalk, so it has a red line across it which turns white about a quarter of the way across. By the time the rails reach you, they can obviously only get marked in white. Now do the same at point Y (starting with a new piece of chalk): you mark the first rail with red, then about a quarter of the parallelogram in red too before that line turnes white, then you mark the second rail with white. Now do the same from point Z (again starting with a new piece of chalk): you mark both rails with red chalk, then you draw a line across the parallelogram which starts red and turns white before it reachs the far side.

Now let's switch to Frame B or B' and look at the events from there. I will be the observer from here. By your magical version of physics, I must see you (the X observer) mark Rail B first with white chalk, and you're holding a well-worn piece of chalk with all the red part missing. Next, I see you mark the parallelogram with red chalk, and your stick of chalk has magically grown such that all the red part is back. I watch the red erode away on the parallelogram and see the line turn white, then the stick of chalk suddenly loses a little chunk of its length while not touching anything before it marks Rail B with white. I am watching magic in action.

Everything will work fine with you working from Y, so let's jump to you as observer Z and see what you look like to Frame B and B' observers. Again, I will be Frame B/B' observer. I see the first rail reach you at point Z first, and you mark it with red. Next, I see some of the red chalk vanish without touching anything. Next, I see the parallelogram reach you and you mark it in a line that turns from red to white. Lastly, I see the chalk sprout most of its length back again so that you can mark Rail B with red, then the chalk magically shortens back down so that you aren't left with any of the chalk which must end up on the parallelogram.

That is how ludicrous your position is. How are you going to fix it now? Perhaps you'll assert that the length contraction can't be applied in the first place and that it should be a rectangle moving NE through Frame A rather than a parallelogram, but if you do that you've just eliminated length contraction from physics.

Quote
But don't trust me: work it out for yourself, you are the expert here.

Yes - I am the expert here and I have worked it out. You're the one who's doing magic and who has been awarded physics qualifications from Hogwarts University.
« Last Edit: 12/08/2016 18:04:11 by David Cooper »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #70 on: 12/08/2016 18:05:33 »
By accelerating chocolate to relativistic speeds we may well be able to make a Heston Blumenthal chocolate fountain to die for.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #71 on: 12/08/2016 18:44:05 »
By accelerating chocolate to relativistic speeds we may well be able to make a Heston Blumenthal chocolate fountain to die for.

You'd think the experiment would already have been done with squares of Galaxy or entire Mars Bars.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #72 on: 12/08/2016 19:00:41 »
I am off to search for scientific papers on the matter!
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #73 on: 12/08/2016 19:09:23 »
Where's the insult in there? Your tactics of avoiding the issues aren't the most attractive thing on show here.
You are correct: your continued failure to actually perform the relevant calculations are examples of my avoiding issues.

Quote
Quote
It is rather the reverse: the relativity of simultaneity ensures that the train wheels continue to stay lined up with the rails.

Is it going to be like this with the peer review people too? Do I have to spend many pages teaching them the basics too before I can introduce them to my proof?
You are claiming to discuss the basics of relativity theory. It is clear to me that you are using a relativity theory other than SR. If you want to claim to be discussing SR, then you are going to have to go over the basics. This means actually performing the calculations rather than taking the shortcuts that you have been doing so far.

You are free to believe whatever you wish. You can even attack me for my refusal to simply abandon rigor and adopt your rough methods.

Quote
How did physics get itself into this mess! I've told you how these diagrams work: they show points plotted out in two space dimensions with the time being identical for each point (by the clock of that frame), but it just doesn't register with you.
You have made claims about how your diagrams work. Yet since you do not actually show us the relevant calculations, we must take your word that your diagrams are correct. On the one hand we have you: one person who has not done all the calculations despite being asked, who claims to have found something that everyone who uses the full calculations has missed. On the other hand we have dozens of textbooks, thousands of articles, and thousands of academics who have reviewed and worked with SR. You ask us to take your authority that your diagrams are correct, but the scientific world does not work like that, it requires the demonstration mathematically.
Quote
Now, can you see the problem with your stance on all this? You imagine that if you jump to a Frame B or Frame B' view of things, the whole rectangle will magically fit between the rails, but that would mean that a Frame B or Frame B' observer would see the observer at X or Z experiencing events in a different order from the one they experienced them in when viewed from Frame A. That kind of reordering of events is impossible.
You are actually contradicting one of the fundamental results of SR, that the order of distant events depends on the system of coordinates used. As I said, most of the time that someone thinks that they have a problem with SR, they really have a problem with the relativity of simultaneity. You have just demonstrated that you reject the relativity of simultaneity, so you are firmly with the majority of those who mistakenly think they have discovered a problem for SR.

Quote
Quote
But don't trust me: work it out for yourself, you are the expert here.

Yes - I am the expert here and I have worked it out. You're the one who's doing magic and who has been awarded physics qualifications from Hogwarts University.
And yet you actually haven't bothered to use the Lorentz transformations.

I know that it might be painful to own up to the truth, but perhaps you have made a mistake? Won't you even consider actually using the transformations that, supposedly, you derived?
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #74 on: 12/08/2016 20:03:33 »
You are correct: your continued failure to actually perform the relevant calculations are examples of my avoiding issues.

Anyone competent can work out for themselves the shape that a square will take up when it moves through Frame A without needing to lift a calculator. You can't do it because you're incompetent to an extraordinary degree. How on Earth can you have qualifications in this if you can't even do that! Which university is responsible for this failure?

Quote
You are claiming to discuss the basics of relativity theory. It is clear to me that you are using a relativity theory other than SR.

I am using things that are 100% parts of SR. The length contraction, the way things appear in Frame A, the direction the contraction is applied, the degree to which it is applied, the coordinates for objects in Frame A (where north-south is one space dimension, east-west is another space dimension, and the whole diagram is a slice showing how things are located in that space at a specific Frame A time. To write it off as not being SR is one of the most ludicrous things you can do.

Quote
If you want to claim to be discussing SR, then you are going to have to go over the basics. This means actually performing the calculations rather than taking the shortcuts that you have been doing so far.

Where is your problem? Look at the diagram and apply your own coordinates to it. A child could do it. For example, we could decide that a stationary square is centered on point (0,0) and with corners at (2,2), (2,-2), (-2,-2) and (-2,2) with north being the Y-axis and east being the X-axis. We can then move it up to relativistic speed moving NE and calculate its shape when it's still centered on (0,0). Two of the corners will retain the same coordinates: (-2, 2) and (2,-2). The other two will move towards (0,0) and you don't need to know exactly how close they will get to it because the effect we're looking at applies to any relativistic speed which takes all the edges of the shape off their original north-south and east-west alignments, so (1,1) and (-1,-1) will do fine. You should understand this intuitively without needing to reach for a calculator. Now string lots of these together to represent a rectangle undergoing the same contraction and you have a parallelogram which will clearly cut across the rails and lead to observers encountering parts of these objects passing them in the order I described.

Quote
You are free to believe whatever you wish. You can even attack me for my refusal to simply abandon rigor and adopt your rough methods.

When something is so clearly proven with visual examples, there is no need to see precise numbers to know that the numbers must fit. If someone shows you a square and tells you it isn't a circle, you don't need to see any coordinates for the corners to know that it's not a circle.

Quote
You have made claims about how your diagrams work. Yet since you do not actually show us the relevant calculations, we must take your word that your diagrams are correct.

You have seen more than enough calculations to get well beyond the point where you should have recognised that I'm right, but you don't want to admit you're wrong, so your only face-saving tactic now is to demand an infinite number of wholly unnecessary numbers.

Quote
On the one hand we have you: one person who has not done all the calculations despite being asked,

I've done all the calculations necessary to prove the case.

Quote
...who claims to have found something that everyone who uses the full calculations has missed.

If you think your way of calculating things disproves my proof, it's your job to demonstrate that. I've told you what shape a moving square will be when it's travelling in a direction not aligned with its edges, but you are incapable of telling whether I'm right in saying that its edges will change their alignment with the grid. Any real expert would immediately confirm that I'm right about the shape, but you won't do that.

Quote
On the other hand we have dozens of textbooks, thousands of articles, and thousands of academics who have reviewed and worked with SR. You ask us to take your authority that your diagrams are correct, but the scientific world does not work like that, it requires the demonstration mathematically.

I ask you to check each of my claims and to home in on specific ones that you take issue with, and if numbers are required to prove a specific point (which is so obvious that no expert should get stuck on it), I'll give you numbers for that point. What is not right is to demand an infinite supply of unnecessary numbers.

Quote
You are actually contradicting one of the fundamental results of SR, that the order of distant events depends on the system of coordinates used.

You still appear to have no comprehension of how flimsy your grasp of this subject is. What distant events? The observer at X, Y or Z is right there at the place where the events he's observing are taking place! The other observer is also right there at the place where the events are taking place. The chalk on the objects is witness to the events taking place where they are too and to their order. The events at the single point X take place in a fixed order, and there is no frame in the universe which you can switch to to show those events taking place in a different order.

Quote
As I said, most of the time that someone thinks that they have a problem with SR, they really have a problem with the relativity of simultaneity. You have just demonstrated that you reject the relativity of simultaneity, so you are firmly with the majority of those who mistakenly think they have discovered a problem for SR.

If this involved observing two events which are both at a distance from the observer and a frame change could change the apparent order in which those events occur, you would have a point, but that is not the case here. All the events being observed happen at point X. In a Spacetime diagram, my point X becomes a line running upwards, vertically in one frame and at an angle in others, the the events that occur in it happen in a fixed order with the first one appearing lowest on that line in every frame and the last appearing highest on that line in every frame. By trying to make the parallelogram fit between the rails when you switch frame, you are changing the order of events on that line, and that is a massive breach of the rules of SR. No one qualified in this stuff should be making such a shocking error.

Quote
And yet you actually haven't bothered to use the Lorentz transformations.

I have used a method of calculating length contraction which I have demonstrated produces the exact same numbers and in demonstrating that I used Lorentz's formula too. If you have a problem with my results, you need to show me how you get a different shape for objects or different alignments of them from the ones I've claimed they will have (and which I've backed with more than enough numbers to prove the point). At no point have you managed to do so in any case, and the reason for that is that you have nothing to offer: you can't find any fault other than imagined ones based on your lack of understanding of SR.

Quote
I know that it might be painful to own up to the truth, but perhaps you have made a mistake? Won't you even consider actually using the transformations that, supposedly, you derived?

I've done all the work necessary to prove the case and see no need in calculating irrelevant numbers for someone who doesn't understand the subject. If you can find a fault, show it. So far, all you've come up with is simultaneity issues which don't apply.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Can a preferred frame of reference be identified?
« Reply #74 on: 12/08/2016 20:03:33 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums