Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: butchmurray on 07/05/2011 20:29:14
-
The Lorentz Factor Conflict MMXI
Thorntone E. ‘Butch’ Murray
May 2011
Problem
When the results of length contraction calculations are applied in the Pythagorean theorem, length perpendicular to the direction of motion is unique for different velocities.This conflicts with the Special Relativity stipulation to the contrary.
Hypothesis
“When one side of a triangle has a fixed length and the length of another side is changed the length of the remaining side must also change.” This property of triangles dictates that since the ‘light path’ the hypotenuse has a fixed length and the length of another side is changed with velocity the remaining side, length perpendicular to the direction of motion, must also change. This contradicts Special Relativity.
Additionally, at relative rest the length of the light path and length perpendicular to the direction of motion are equal. When in relative motion the light path becomes the hypotenuse of a right triangle. The hypotenuse of a right triangle is the longest side. The length of the light path and length perpendicular to the direction of motion are no longer equal. One or both of these two lengths has changed. Change of either of these lengths contradicts Special Relativity.
Data
The light path – c is fixed at 1
a2=c2-b2
a2=c2-.4352 a2=1-.189 a2=.811 a=.900
a2=c2-.52 a2=1-.25 a2=.75 a=.866
a2=c2-.9952 a2=1-.990 a2=.01 a=.1
The ‘light path’, the hypotenuse ‘c’, has a fixed length and the length of another side is changed with velocity the remaining side, length perpendicular to the direction of motion, must also change.
Conclusion
The Lorentz factor is a corner stone of Special Relativity. It, however, either conflicts with the Special Relativity tenet that length perpendicular to the direction of motion does not change OR that the speed of light is constant OR both.
Prediction
Chaos will ensue.
-
You are confused about the concept of frames of reference. The speed of light in a given reference frame is measured in m/s, where the meter sticks and clocks are stationary in that reference frame. If you measure the speed of light in two different reference frames, you get the same speed because you are measuring relative to a different set of meter sticks and clocks.
What you appear to be doing is measuring the speed of light in one reference frame by using meter sticks and clocks from a different reference frame.
-
Hi Butch. I think Fraktalitee is correct - but to get further into why you really need to provide more details on your thought experiment - preferably with a diagram. I reckon that once you do this you yourself will realise your error - BTW when going up against one of the most tested theorems of all time it is probably best to assume error until every possibly source is exhausted :-)
-
Thank you both.
Everything referenced is as observed from relative rest.
Time is one unit. It doesn’t matter if it is seconds, hours, etc. but is the same unit throughout.
The body is one light unit square when at relative rest.
The right triangle is observed from relative rest with the body in uniform relative motion.
The right triangle:
The vertical side is the height of the body – one light unit in length
The horizontal side is the contracted length of the body
The hypotenuse is the light path for one unit of time - one light unit in length
SR dictates that the height of the body does not change. The speed of light is constant. Light therefore must traverse one light unit of length in one unit of time - one light unit of length.
That is the basic problem. The hypotenuse is the longest side of a right triangle. The vertical side and the hypotenuse cannot be the same length.
Thanks again,
Butch
-
Forgot to mention:
By virtue of the constancy of the speed of light the hypotenuse will always be one light unit in length. In any triangle with one side of fixed length (the light path- hypotenuse), the change of length of another side (the horizontal leg that changes with relative velocity) will result in the change of length in the remaining side (the height of the body which according to SR does not change).
Butch
-
Butch - you are still not making a lot of sense. You need a diagram or a better description.
-
The Lorentz Factor Conflict MMXI
Thorntone E. ‘Butch’ Murray
May 2011
Problem
When the results of length contraction calculations are applied in the Pythagorean theorem, length perpendicular to the direction of motion is unique for different velocities.This conflicts with the Special Relativity stipulation to the contrary.
Hypothesis
One of SRT’s postulate says that quantum of light moves
in a straight line with constant speed c=1 in the vacuum.
So, in SRT we have one reference frame and it is vacuum.
Not hypothetical problem:
Can quantum of light have geometrical form of a triangle?
===.
S.
-
Socratus - you are wrongly muddying the issue. SR does not deal with quantised light . SR is based on gedenken so it is acceptable to be hypothetical. Reference frame in these terms does not refer to whether it is a vacuum but to whether the observer is in relative motion or accelerating.
FYG a quick search on the entire original book give zero results for quantum, quanta, packet, discrete or wavelength. Einstein did publish his Nobel prize winning paper on Photoelectric Effect in same year as SR - but SR most certainly does not engage with quantum theory of light
-
Unfortunately, I will probably not have time to dedicate to this project until this coming weekend.
Thank you,
Butch
-
This revision (.01) addresses the issues of the previous version.
The Lorentz Factor Conflict MMXI.01
Problem
As viewed from rest, length perpendicular to the direction of motion is changed when the uniform relative velocity of the body is changed. This conflicts with the Special Relativity stipulation to the contrary.
Hypothesis
“When one side of a triangle has a fixed length and the length of another side is changed the length of the remaining side must also change.” This property of triangles dictates that since the ‘light path’ the hypotenuse has a fixed length and the length of another side is changed with velocity the remaining side, length perpendicular to the direction of motion, must also change.
Data
Fig. A, Fig. B & Fig. C
All are as viewed from relative rest.
Time duration for all (proper time) = 1 second.
IIA, IIB, & IIC light path: fixed length = 1 light second. (Light speed for 1 second.)
IIIB & IIIC the distance (length) this end of the light path has advanced in the direction of motion at a chosen velocity >0, <1c for 1 second. (For appearance IIIB < IIIC)
Fig. A: IA = height of body (length perpendicular to the direction of motion) at relative rest. Length = 1 light second
Fig. B: IIB length = 1 light second
IIIB length = .2 light seconds (.2c for 1 second)
Fig. C: IIC length = 1 light second
IIIC length = .6 light seconds (.6c for 1 second)
Fig B calculation:
a2+b2=c2 a2= c2- b2 IB2= IIB2- IIIB2 IB2=12-.22 IB2=1-.04
IB2=.96 IB=sqrt .96 IB=.98 light seconds
Fig C calculation:
a2+b2=c2 a2= c2- b2 IC2= IIC2- IIIC2 IC2=12-.62 IC2=1-.36
IC2=.64 IC=sqrt .64 IC=.8 light seconds
Length perpendicular to the direction of motion
IA at relative rest – 1 light second
IB at relative velocity .2c - .98 light seconds
IC at relative velocity .6c - .8 light seconds
Conclusion
Observed from relative rest, if the relative velocity of a body is changed the length of the body perpendicular to the direction of motion must also change.
Prediction
A new explanation for the results of the interferometer experiments by Michelson-Morley and others will be discovered.
-
Maybe you could use this one instead :) There's a 'triangle' somewhere in it. (http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_basics/index.html)
==
And the values he use is easy to understand.
-
This still doesn't make any sense whatsoever. This is not surprising for a claim that attempts to refute Special Relativity. There is little doubt that one must have a serious misunderstanding of the science and mathematics involved to put forward such a claim.