0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
QuoteAnyone 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
I'm glad you are being so pleasant and attempting to diagnose me. It speaks very highly of your character.
QuoteYou'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.
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.
By accelerating chocolate to relativistic speeds we may well be able to make a Heston Blumenthal chocolate fountain to die for.
Where's the insult in there? Your tactics of avoiding the issues aren't the most attractive thing on show here.
QuoteIt 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.
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.
QuoteBut 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.
You are correct: your continued failure to actually perform the relevant calculations are examples of my avoiding issues.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Quote from: PhysBang on 12/08/2016 19:09:23You 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Is there no real expert with qualifications here who's going to step in and let PhysBang know he's not up to this stuff? You could do it in a PM, but he needs to be told and he won't take it from me. The best way to defend physics isn't to dig in and defend things that are wrong, but to move on and make the subject right.
Quote from: David Cooper on 12/08/2016 20:03:33Quote from: PhysBang on 12/08/2016 19:09:23You 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?So you are refusing to do the calculations necessary to show you are correct? Need I remind you that this is your argument? That you are trying to convince me and others? That you came here, asking for flaws in your argument? It was only because you asked that I pointed out that you failed to take time into account and that you have not done the calculations to make your case.You are free to believe that you don't have to be held to the same standard that physicists are held when making their arguments. You did, however, ask for help. You are behaving as if your requests for help are not genuine.QuoteQuoteYou 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.You are, by your own admission, only using part of SR. That means that you are using your own special form of relativity.QuoteWhere 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.Note what you refused to include there: the time coordinate. This is very important since you are claiming that there are times when the wheels of the train do not coincide with the track, yet you refuse to actually work out any of these times.Were I not willing to grant you some charity, I would conclude that you do not know how to do this and you are attempting to hide this failure. As it stands, you simply seem to hard-headed to take the time to do your work properly. QuoteWhen 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.Again, we have to take your word that your diagrams are correct because you will not justify them by using the correct mathematical physics.QuoteYou 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.All I have demanded is to see the relevant time coordinates. That is one finite set of numbers. These are necessary numbers because you are speaking of events where the train wheels do not meet the train track; all events have a location in space and a time at which they occur.QuoteIf 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.You are claiming, without working through the calculations, that they will verify your claims. You seem to be claiming to have a very wonderful precognitive ability. And yet you still seem unable to write a convincing argument. Shouldn't your precognitive abilities allow you to know in advance what will be a convincing argument?QuoteI 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.I asked you for a specific set of numbers, viz, the time coordinates and the associated calculations related to your claims. Lying about what I wrote will not help your case, and it may very well get you banned from these forums.QuoteYou 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!Because the wheels of the train are not at the same spatial location, any events that happen there are distant from each other. Thus the order of events at the train wheels can differ in different systems of coordinates. This is very basic SR. I urge you to read about the relativity of simultaneity; it may save you a lot of embarrassment.QuoteIf 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.This cannot be the case, since you are speaking of separate wheels and separate points on two different train tracks. Again, carefully working out the actual transformations would help you realize the problems in your argument.QuoteI'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.Sure, you can whine and repeat the same things over and over again. I understand your psychological pressure: you claim to be a self-taught expert on education and it might look bad if you fail to self-teach yourself the basics of a subject. However, everyone can make mistakes and it looks very bad if you become the example case that being self-taught means not being able to fix one's mistakes. By setting yourself up as an expert on education, you damage not only your character but also your expertise on education by refusing to actually consider a suggestion offered in good faith.Quote from: David Cooper on 12/08/2016 20:07:04Is there no real expert with qualifications here who's going to step in and let PhysBang know he's not up to this stuff? You could do it in a PM, but he needs to be told and he won't take it from me. The best way to defend physics isn't to dig in and defend things that are wrong, but to move on and make the subject right.I would be seriously surprised if there were an "expert" who would come forward and say that your argument is correct and SR is hopelessly inconsistent. I have no doubt that there are cranks around here who might PM you that I am incorrect because they too cannot answer the relevant questions I have offered them. If you want to side with these cranks, then so be it. You are free to believe what you want to believe. You can lie about the content of my posts and insult me if you would like, but do not be surprised if there are consequences.
QuoteYou 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.
So you are refusing to do the calculations necessary to show you are correct? Need I remind you that this is your argument? That you are trying to convince me and others? That you came here, asking for flaws in your argument? It was only because you asked that I pointed out that you failed to take time into account and that you have not done the calculations to make your case.
You are free to believe that you don't have to be held to the same standard that physicists are held when making their arguments. You did, however, ask for help. You are behaving as if your requests for help are not genuine.
You are, by your own admission, only using part of SR. That means that you are using your own special form of relativity.
Note what you refused to include there: the time coordinate. This is very important since you are claiming that there are times when the wheels of the train do not coincide with the track, yet you refuse to actually work out any of these times.
Were I not willing to grant you some charity, I would conclude that you do not know how to do this and you are attempting to hide this failure. As it stands, you simply seem to hard-headed to take the time to do your work properly.
Again, we have to take your word that your diagrams are correct because you will not justify them by using the correct mathematical physics.
All I have demanded is to see the relevant time coordinates. That is one finite set of numbers. These are necessary numbers because you are speaking of events where the train wheels do not meet the train track; all events have a location in space and a time at which they occur.
You are claiming, without working through the calculations, that they will verify your claims. You seem to be claiming to have a very wonderful precognitive ability. And yet you still seem unable to write a convincing argument. Shouldn't your precognitive abilities allow you to know in advance what will be a convincing argument?
I asked you for a specific set of numbers, viz, the time coordinates and the associated calculations related to your claims. Lying about what I wrote will not help your case, and it may very well get you banned from these forums.
Because the wheels of the train are not at the same spatial location, any events that happen there are distant from each other. Thus the order of events at the train wheels can differ in different systems of coordinates. This is very basic SR. I urge you to read about the relativity of simultaneity; it may save you a lot of embarrassment.
Sure, you can whine and repeat the same things over and over again. I understand your psychological pressure: you claim to be a self-taught expert on education and it might look bad if you fail to self-teach yourself the basics of a subject. However, everyone can make mistakes and it looks very bad if you become the example case that being self-taught means not being able to fix one's mistakes. By setting yourself up as an expert on education, you damage not only your character but also your expertise on education by refusing to actually consider a suggestion offered in good faith.
I would be seriously surprised if there were an "expert" who would come forward and say that your argument is correct and SR is hopelessly inconsistent.
I have no doubt that there are cranks around here who might PM you that I am incorrect because they too cannot answer the relevant questions I have offered them. If you want to side with these cranks, then so be it. You are free to believe what you want to believe. You can lie about the content of my posts and insult me if you would like, but do not be surprised if there are consequences.