0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LENGTH CONTRACTION AND TIME DILATION CONTRADICT THE CONSTANCY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT - MMXIIIByThorntone E. “Butch” MurrayHouston, Texas, USA June 4, 2013CONTENTION:This contention is in strict adherence to and based exclusively on principles presented in the 1905 Theory of Special Relativity (SR) by Albert Einstein. The following mathematical analysis of an ordinary, unremarkable circumstance proves that time dilation and length contraction as presented in SR contradict a fundamental assumption of SR that the speed of light is constant and the same for all observers.

Alancalverd,Since this relates to the mathematical foundation of SR, the first paragraph of my last post is very probably as clear as it can get without maths. Sorry.

I'm competely unapologetic about being an experimental physicist.

You write “Although true, technically..”

I’ve switched to c for the speed of light and not “C” since the lowercase c is standard notation in relativity. You’ve mislabeled the time parameter in both frames. In S the time parameter is tau (the proper time read on the clock) and in S’ the time parameter is t.

Your confusion with the symbols led you to your erroneous conclusion.

These errors led you a succession of errors in the rest of your “derivation” which was wrong in the end.

You should have known that tens of thousands of physicists doing this derivation over every single day for a hundred years

tens of thousands of physicists doing this derivation over every single day for a hundred years would have picked u[ an error long before now if one actually existed

experimental errors would have been found a long time ago too.

what experimental result does your theory predict? What actually happens when you do the experiment?

QuoteI’ve switched to c for the speed of light and not “C” since the lowercase c is standard notation in relativity. You’ve mislabeled the time parameter in both frames. In S the time parameter is tau (the proper time read on the clock) and in S’ the time parameter is t.Quote from: butchmurrayYou must agree that as long as what is meant is understood, squabbling over terminology is nothing more than a distraction from real issues and a waste of time.No. I do not agree. For some reason you feel the need to have switched from the notation that I chose to use for the derivation for another convention, perhaps one that you prefer because you’re used to it. When made the change you also made errors that went along with it. When I pointed out to you what your error was, you then thought that the right approach was to get me to switch back to your notation again, that one that you used in the derivation where you made an error.Quote from: pmbYour confusion with the symbols led you to your erroneous conclusion.Your erroneous conclusion is that there is no length contraction, which has been demonstrated by experiment to be correct.Quote from: butchmurrayPlease show the instance(s) where confusion with the symbols led to an erroneous conclusion or state clearly this is your opinion.In this case your change in notation led you to make an error in the conversation that led to your mistake.The experiments constant with Lorentz contraction can easily be found all over the internet in journal articles and by looking at the literature that particle accelerator labs provide. I don’t do anybody’s work when they can do if for themselves.

You must agree that as long as what is meant is understood, squabbling over terminology is nothing more than a distraction from real issues and a waste of time.

Please show the instance(s) where confusion with the symbols led to an erroneous conclusion or state clearly this is your opinion.

This is not a theory. It elucidates a logic/mathematical error. There are no experiments. There are no predictions.

It elucidates a logic/mathematical error.

What is the time limit for this?

Please, let us confine discussions to facts that can be referenced and label opinions as such.

Per the laws of physics, time in frame O (t) and time in O’ (t’) are equal

Inertial frame O’ is in motion relative to inertial frame O at a speed >0<C

The Least Complicated Proof

For the light path in frame K: y=CtFor the identical light path in frame K’: y’=Ct’Per SR, y’=y. Then: Ct=y=y’=Ct’ any two of these are equal.

Hi David.Albert Einstein (1879–1955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.XI. The Lorentz TransformationParagraph 4:A. Einstein clearly states, y’=y and z’=z

For the light path in frame K: y=Ct

For the identical light path in frame K’: y’=Ct’

David and JeffreyH,The interest you both have is greatly appreciated.Nobel laureates Einstein and Feynman were professors at Caltech. I mention that because Caltech in cooperation with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) produced the truly amazing physics series “The Mechanical Universe and Beyond”.Here is the link for the segment that explains the Lorentz transformation as developed by Lorentz and Einstein....sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGINI guarantee you it will hold your interest and give you a deeper insight on the subject. Please let me know what you think.Butch

And the reason you made this mistake is that you neglected the momentum of the dilated frame otherwise time would be accelerated in the moving frame rather than slowed down.

Firstly, I already know about Lorentz transformations.

Secondly, do you believe I will find some error in relativity by studying this?

jeffreyH,You wrote:QuoteAnd the reason you made this mistake is that you neglected the momentum of the dilated frame otherwise time would be accelerated in the moving frame rather than slowed down.Here Einstein explains ‘frames’:...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGINAlbert Einstein (1879–1955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.XI. The Lorentz TransformationParagraph 3:“A co-ordinate system K then corresponds to the embankment and a co-ordinate system K’ to the train.” – Frames K and K’Since a co-ordinate system has no mass, THERE IS NO MOMENTUM. Yet, you state:QuoteFirstly, I already know about Lorentz transformations.You wrote:QuoteSecondly, do you believe I will find some error in relativity by studying this?It was clearly stated “Lorentz transformation as developed by Lorentz and Einstein”So, quite obviously, the answer is NO.Again, thank you for your interest.Butch

Please be more specific. Exactly what is wrong with which step.Thank you,Butch

17. In 2 seconds, light propagates 600,000km.18. Relative to length in K the calculated length of the light path in K’ is 600,000km.