Length Contraction and Time Dilation Contradict the Constancy of Light Speed

  • 75 Replies
  • 19240 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
LENGTH CONTRACTION AND TIME DILATION CONTRADICT THE CONSTANCY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT - MMXIII
By
Thorntone E. Butch Murray
Houston, Texas, USA
June 4, 2013

CONTENTION:
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.

FOR THESE PURPOSES:
There are two identical circular clocks each with a pointer and there are three identical light clocks each with a light pulse. A light clock is a particular type of light path. The length of a measuring rod, the length of a light clock and the length of a light path are analogous. When light clocks are judged to have the same length, the light pulses in those light clocks are judged to have the same round trip distance. When the length of a light clock is judged contracted by a factor, the round trip distance for the light pulse in that light clock is judged contracted by that same factor. The amount of time for the pointer in a circular clock to complete one revolution is the amount of time for light pulses in light clocks in the same frame to complete one round trip. Frame K and frame K are inertial frames. Frame K is in motion relative to frame K.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LENGTH CONTRACTION
AS PRESENTED IN SR:
The proper length of a measuring rod and so the proper length of a light clock is its length judged from within the frame it occupies. The three light clocks are the same proper length. The round trip distance for a light pulse in a light clock of proper length is d.  Judged from frame K the length of a measuring rod and so the length of a light clock oriented perpendicular to the direction of motion in frame K is its proper length. Then, judged from frame K the round trip distance for a light pulse in a light clock in frame K and the round trip distance for a light pulse in a light clock oriented perpendicular to the direction of motion in frame K are both d. Judged from frame K the length of a measuring rod and so the length of a light clock oriented in the direction of motion in frame K is its proper length contracted by the length contraction factor sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)). The round trip distance for a light pulse in a light clock judged as its proper length contracted by the length contraction factor sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)) is d*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)). Then, judged from frame K the round trip distance for a light pulse in a light clock oriented in the direction of motion in frame K is d*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)).

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TIME DILATION
AS PRESENTED IN SR:
Judged from frame K when K is in motion relative to frame K time in K advances at a slower rate than time in frame K.  Judged from frame K time in frame K advances at a faster rate than time in K.  Judged from frame K time in frame K advances at a faster rate than time in K by the factor 1/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)). Then judged from frame K the pointer in the circular clock in K advances at a faster rate than the pointer in the identical circular clock in frame K by the factor 1/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)). Judged from K the amount of time for the pointer in the circular clock in K to complete one revolution is the amount of time for the pointer in the identical circular clock in frame K to complete 1/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)) revolutions. Judged from frame K t is the amount of time for the pointer in the circular clock in frame K to complete one revolution. Then judged from K the amount of time for the pointer in the circular clock in frame K to complete one revolution is t/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)).

THE LIGHT CLOCK IN FRAME K:
One of the previously described circular clocks and one of the light clocks are in frame K.  Judged from K that light clock is its proper length. Then, judged from frame K the round trip distance for the light pulse in that light clock in frame K is d.  Judged from K the pointer in the circular clock in frame K completes one revolution in amount of time t.  The amount of time for the pointer in a circular clock to complete one revolution is the amount of time for a light pulse to complete one round trip in light clocks in the same frame. Then, judged from K the light pulse in the light clock in frame K completes one round trip in that light clock in amount of time t.

For these purposes, v is the speed of the light pulse, the speed of light c.  The amount of time for the light pulse to complete the round trip is t.  The round trip distance for the light pulse is d. All is judged from frame K.
     The speed formula
          v=d/t
     Substitute c for v
          c=d/t
For these purposes, judged from frame K the expression (d/t) represents the speed of the light pulse thus the speed of light in the light clock in frame K.

BOTH LIGHT CLOCKS IN K:
The remaining circular clock and two light clocks are in frame K. The amount of time for a light pulse to complete one round trip in the light clocks in frame K is the amount of time for the pointer in the circular clock in frame K to complete one revolution. Judged from K the amount of time for the pointer in the circular clock in frame K to complete one revolution is the amount of time for the pointer in the circular clock in K to complete 1/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)) revolutions. Judged from K the amount of time for a light pulse to complete one round trip in the light clocks in frame K is the amount of time for the pointer in the circular clock in K to complete 1/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)) revolutions. Judged from K the amount of time for the pointer in the circular clock in K to complete 1/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)) revolutions is t/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)). Therefore, judged from K the amount of time for a light pulse to complete one round trip in the light clocks in frame K is t/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)).

THE LIGHT CLOCK PERPENDICULAR TO
THE DIRECTION OF MOTION IN K:
One of the light clocks in frame K is oriented perpendicular to the direction of motion. Judged from frame K the length of the light clock that is perpendicular to the direction of motion in frame K is its proper length. Then, judged from frame K the round trip distance for the light pulse in that light clock is d.  Judged from frame K the amount of time for the light pulse in each light clock in K complete one round trip is t/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)). Judged from K the round trip distance for the light pulse in the light clock in frame K that is oriented perpendicular to the direction of motion is d.

For these purposes, v is the speed of the light pulse, the speed of light c.  The amount of time for the light pulse to complete the round trip is t/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)). The round trip distance for the light pulse is d. All is judged from frame K.
     The speed formula
          v=d/t
     Substitute c for v
          c=d/t
     Substitute t/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)) for t
          c=d/t/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c))
     Simplify
          c=(d/t)*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c))
For these purposes, judged from frame K the expression (d/t)*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)) represents the speed of the light pulse thus the speed of light in the light clock that is perpendicular to the direction of motion in frame K.

BOTH LIGHT CLOCKS IN K: (Intentionally repeated)
Previously established under this heading, judged from frame K the amount of time for a light pulse to complete one round trip in the light clocks in frame K is t/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)).

THE LIGHT CLOCK IN
THE DIRECTION OF MOTION IN K:
The remaining light clock in frame K is oriented in the direction of motion. Judged from frame K the length of the light clock that is in the direction of motion in frame K is its proper length contracted by the length contraction factor sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)). Then, judged from frame K the round trip distance for the light pulse in that light clock is d*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)). Judged from frame K the amount of time for the light pulse in each light clock in K to complete one round trip is t/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)). Judged from K the round trip distance for the light pulse in the light clock in frame K that is oriented in the direction of motion is d*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)).

For these purposes, v is the speed of the light pulse, the speed of light c. The amount of time for the light pulse to complete the round trip is t/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)). The round trip distance for the light pulse is d*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)). All is judged from frame K.
     The speed formula
          v=d/t
     Substitute c for v
          c= d/t
     Substitute t/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)) for t
          c=d/t/sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c))
     Simplify
          c=(d/t)*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c))
     Substitute d*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c)) for d
          c=(d*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c))/t)*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c))
     Simplify
          c=(d/t)*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c))*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c))
     Simplify further
          c=(d/t)*(1-(v*v/c*c))
For these purposes, judged from frame K the expression (d/t)*(1-(v*v/c*c)) represents the speed of the light pulse thus the speed of light in the light clock that is in the direction of motion in frame K.

SUMMARY:
Judged by an observer in frame K with frame K in motion relative to frame K at a relative speed greater than zero and less than c the speed of light in each of the three light clocks is unique.

Judged by the observer in frame K the speed of light in the light clock in inertial frame K:
          c= d/t
Judged by the observer in frame K the speed of light in the light clock perpendicular to the direction of motion in inertial frame K:
          c=(d/t)*sqrt(1-(v*v/c*c))
Judged by the observer in frame K the speed of light in the light clock in the direction of motion in inertial frame K:
          c=(d/t)*(1-(v*v/c*c))

The speed of light in the three light clocks is not constant and the same judged by an observer in frame K.

CONCLUSION:
This 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.

Butchmurray



« Last Edit: 06/06/2013 05:13:19 by butchmurray »
I was not smart enough to know it was impossible to do what I did.

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
I don't think anyone's going to be able to find the time to try to understand all that. Perhaps some diagrams would help make it more intelligible. There's a tool for drawing them here which can be accessed by clicking on "Create a new diagram", just under the box where you type your message in (assuming you aren't using the "Quick reply" one).

*

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
Hi David.

Your response to my message was quicker than I anticipated.

You make a good point. Ill post a synopsis in the next few days.

Thanks for the insight.

Butch
I was not smart enough to know it was impossible to do what I did.

*

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
I apologize for my prolonged absence.
Butch

This explanation by example should make the concept easier to understand. The math is basic.

The contention uses only the principles as set forth in The Theory of Special Relativity (SR) and the speed formula, v=d/t. It proves mathematically that length contraction and time dilation as set forth by SR contradict the fundamental assumption of SR that the speed of light is constant and the same for all observers. Judged from within the frame of the observer the speed of light is 300,000 km/s. The same observer judges the speed of light perpendicular to the direction of motion to be 150,000 km/s and the speed of light in the direction of motion to be 75,000 km/s in an inertial frame in relative motion at the at the speed .866c.

FOR THESE PURPOSES:
   A light clock is an imaginary construction that consists of two reflectors with a light pulse continuously reflected from one reflector to the other.
   Judged from within the inertial frame it occupies the length of a light clock is its proper length.
   For a light clock judged as its proper length, the round trip distance for the light pulse in that light clock is 300,000 km.
   For a light clock judged as its proper length contracted by the length contraction factor, the round trip distance for the light pulse in that light clock is judged as 300,000 km contracted by that same factor.
   There are 2 identical circular clocks and 3 identical light clocks.
   The light pulse in each light clock completes 1 round trip in the time it takes for the pointer in the circular clock in that same frame to complete 1 revolution.
   Judged from within the inertial frame it occupies the pointer in a circular clock completes 1 revolution in 1 second.
   1 circular clock and 1 light clock are in frame K with the observer.
   1 circular clock and 2 light clocks are in frame K.
   Inertial frame K is in motion relative to inertial frame K at the speed .866c.

THE LIGHT CLOCK IN FRAME K:
Judged by the observer in frame K the length of the light clock is its proper length. Then judged by the observer in frame K the round trip distance for the light pulse in that light clock is 300,000 km.  Judged by the observer in frame K the amount of time for that light pulse to complete 1 round trip and the time for the pointer in the circular clock to complete 1 revolution is identical, 1 second.
     The speed formula
          v=d/t
     Judged by the observer in frame K
          d= 300,000 km - the round trip distance for the light pulse
          t= s - 1 second
          v= c the speed of the light pulse
     Substitute 300,000 km for d, s for t, c for v
          c=300,000 km/s
Judged by the observer in frame K the speed of light in the light clock in frame K is 300,000 km/s.

   Inertial frame K is at relative rest, inertial frame K is in relative motion at .866c.
   Per SR relative to time in frame K time in frame K is dilated/slower.
   Per SR for the relative speed .866c the time dilation factor is 2.
   Per SR judged by the observer in frame K length perpendicular to the direction of motion in frame K is the proper length.
   Per SR judged by the observer in frame K length in the direction of motion in frame K is the proper length factored by the length contraction factor.
   Per SR for the relative speed .866c the length contraction factor is .5.

FOR BOTH LIGHT CLOCKS IN K:
The light pulse in each of the light clocks in K complete 1 round trip and the pointer in the circular clock in K completes 1 revolution in the same amount of time. As the time dilation factor is 2, judged by the observer in frame K the pointer in the circular clock in K completes 1 revolution and the pointer in the circular clock in frame K completes 2 revolutions in the same amount of time. Then judged by the observer in frame K the light pulse in each of the light clocks in K complete 1 round trip and the pointer in the circular clock in frame K completes 2 revolutions in the same amount of time. Judged by the observer in frame K the pointer in the circular clock in frame K completes 1 revolution in 1 second. Then judged by the observer in frame K the pointer in the circular clock in frame K completes 2 revolutions in 2 seconds. Then judged by the observer in frame K the light pulse in each of the light clocks in K complete 1 round trip in 2 seconds.

THE LIGHT CLOCK PERPENDICULAR TO THE DIRECTION OF MOTION IN FRAME K:
Judged by the observer in frame K the length of the light clock that is perpendicular to the direction of motion in frame K is the proper length. Then judged by the observer in frame K the round trip distance for the light pulse in that light clock is 300,000 km. Stated in FOR BOTH LIGHT CLOCKS IN K , judged by the observer in frame K the light pulse in each of the light clocks in K complete 1 round trip in 2 seconds.

     The speed formula
          v=d/t
     Judged by the observer in frame K
          d= 300,000 km - the round trip distance for the light pulse
          t= 2s - two seconds
          v= c the speed of the light pulse
     Substitute 300,000 km for d, 2s for t, c for v
          c=300,000 km/2s
     Simplify
          c=150,000 km/s
Judged by the observer in frame K the speed of light in the light clock perpendicular to the direction of motion in frame K is 150,000 km/s.

THE LIGHT CLOCK IN THE DIRECTION OF MOTION IN FRAME K:
Judged by the observer in frame K the length of the light clock that is in the direction of motion in frame K is the proper length factored by the length contraction factor .5.  Then judged by the observer in frame K the round trip distance for the light pulse in that light clock is 300,000 km factored by .5.  Stated in FOR BOTH LIGHT CLOCKS IN K , judged by the observer in frame K the light pulse in each of the light clocks in K complete 1 round trip in 2 seconds.

     The speed formula
          v=d/t
     Judged by the observer in frame K
          d= .5*300,000 km the round trip distance for the light pulse factored by .5
          t= 2s - two seconds
          v= c the speed of the light pulse
     Substitute .5*300,000 km for d, 2s for t, c for v
          c=.5*300,000 km/2s
     Simplify
          c=150,000 km/2s
     Simplify further
          c=75,000 km/s
Judged by the observer in frame K the speed of light in the light clock in the direction of motion in frame K is 75,000 km/s.

Butch


I was not smart enough to know it was impossible to do what I did.

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
I'm sorry, but I've cracked. I just can't load all that stuff into my head any more. Maybe someone else can have a go.

*

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
David,
Please dont crack now!
Is this better?

Judged by one observer a light pulse, therefore, light has 3 distinct speeds.
Everything here is judged by one observer in the inertial frame that is at relative rest.

WITHIN THE FRAME OF THE OBSERVER:
     Orientation of light path does not apply
     Length proper length
     Time proper time
     Length of the light path the proper length, 299,792,548 meters (300,000 km)
     Time for the light pulse to traverse the light path 1 second proper time
     Speed of the light pulse in the light path 300,000 km/1 second
     300,000 km/s the proper speed of light judged by the observer

Speed of relatively moving frame - .866c
Time dilation factor for .866c 2
Length contraction factor for .866c - .5

THE RELATIVELY MOVING FRAME:
LIGHT PATH PERPENDICULAR TO THE DIRECTION OF MOTION:
     Length proper length
     Length of the light path the proper length 300,000 km
     Time for moving frame proper time is factored by 2, the time dilation factor
     Time dilation factor 2 * 1 second proper time = 2 seconds dilated time
     Time for the light pulse to traverse the light path 2 seconds dilated time
     Speed of the light pulse in the light path 300,000 km/2 seconds
     150,000 km/s Speed of light judged by the observer (at relative rest)
LIGHT PATH IN THE DIRECTION OF MOTION:
     Length proper length is factored by .5, the length contraction factor
     Length contraction factor .5 * the proper length 300,000 km = 150,000 km
     Length of the light path the contracted length 150,000 km
     Time for moving frame proper time is factored by 2, the time dilation factor
     Time dilation factor 2 * 1 second proper time = 2 seconds dilated time
     Time for the light pulse to traverse the light path 2 seconds dilated time
     Speed of the light pulse in the light path 150,000 km/2 seconds
     75,000 km/s Speed of light judged by the observer (at relative rest)

JUDGED BY THE OBSERVER AT RELATIVE REST:
     300,000 km/s is the proper speed of light in the frame of the observer

     150,000 km/s is the speed of light in a light path perpendicular to the direction of motion in a frame in relative motion at .866c

     75,000 km/s is the speed of light in a light path in the direction of motion in a frame in relative motion at .866c

Butch
I was not smart enough to know it was impossible to do what I did.

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Sorry, but I just can't do it any more. It's still all presented in a form that I simply can't get my mind to work with. I'm sure your argument could be presented in a form where the central part of it comes up front and where it's described clearly to avoid unnecessary confusion, but as it stands it's asking the reader to do ten times as much work as should be necessary. Experience also tells me that what you have above is likely to be nothing more than a more convoluted version of your earlier attempts to prove something where it didn't appear to work and you didn't appear to be able to see that it didn't work (or maybe where it did work and I just couldn't see it, in which case I'm not up to the task anyway), so I simply can't motivate myself to work with the new version unless it's presented enormously better than any of the past versions (which were always far too hard to follow comfortably). It's just got to the point where I can't get my mind to work on it any more, and it's beginning to turn into a mental block now which means that even if you do manage to present it properly I'm going to have a hard time getting up the energy to attempt to work with it, but it would at least make it more likely that someone else would give it a go. [I still think diagrams would help.]

*

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
SYNOPSIS:

Speed = distance divided by time, d/t e.g. 300,000 kilometers/1 second or simply 300,000 km/s

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE THEORY OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY (SR):
Judged by an observer at relative rest the speed of a light pulse (the speed of light) in a light path in the OBSERVERS FRAME is defined as the proper length of the light path (its length in the observers frame) divided by the proper time (time in the observers frame):
 - proper length/proper time

Judged by that same observer at relative rest, when a light path in a FRAME IN MOTION relative to that observer is PERPENDICULAR TO THE DIRECTION OF MOTION the speed of the light pulse is defined as the proper length of the light path divided by the product of the proper time multiplied by the time dilation factor:
 - proper length/proper time * time dilation factor

Again, judged by that same observer at relative rest, when that light path in that same FRAME IN MOTION is IN THE DIRECTION OF MOTION, the speed of the light pulse is defined as the proper length of the light path multiplied by the length contraction factor divided by the product of the proper time multiplied by the time dilation factor:
 - proper length * length contraction factor/proper time * time dilation factor

Then in accordance with SR, for that one observer light has 3 distinct speeds.
 - proper length/proper time
 - proper length/proper time * time dilation factor
 - proper length * length contraction factor/proper time * time dilation factor
HOWEVER, according to SR the speed of light is constant and the same for all observers.

Butch

I was not smart enough to know it was impossible to do what I did.

*

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
Frames K and K' have their origins O and O' coincident at time t=t'=0. Let x be the direction of motion of K' with respect to K the speed being v. A ray of light leaves the origin and propagates in the vertical direction y with speed C, as seen by an observer at rest in the K' frame. We have C = d'/t', where d' is the distance traveled in the time t'. The distance d' could be represented by a vertical rod of length d' = O'A'.

Another ray of light leaves the origin and propagates in the vertical direction y with speed C, as seen by an observer at rest in the K frame. We have C = d/t, where d is the distance traveled in the time t. The distance d could be represented by a vertical rod of length d = OA.

The vertical distances traveled, d and d', are equal in both K and K'. Since C = d'/t' then t=d/C. Since C = d/t then t=d/C. Since d=d then t=d/C and t=d/C therefore, t=t.

Since t=t, then time is equal in both frame K and frame K.
I was not smart enough to know it was impossible to do what I did.

*

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
This is an unpolished version of the quantitative mathematical description of the contention. A significant modification was made.

Frames K and K' have their origins O and O' coincident at time t=t'=0. Let x be the direction of motion of K' with respect to K the speed being v. A ray of light leaves the origin and propagates in the vertical direction y with speed C, as seen by an observer at rest in the K frame. We have C = d/t, where d is the distance traveled in the time t. The distance d could be represented by a vertical rod of length d = OA. Then, as seen by an observer at rest in the K frame C = d/t=C

Another ray of light leaves the origin and propagates in the vertical direction y with speed C, as seen by an observer at rest in the K' frame. We have C = d'/t', where d' is the distance traveled in the time t'. The distance d' could be represented by a vertical rod of length d' = O'A'. When d is in the vertical direction y, d=d. (Per SR, time in K is dilated relative to time in K.) So, t=(t)(square root[1-(v/C)]). Then, as seen by an observer at rest in the K frame C = d'/t' = d/(t)(square root[1-(v/C)]) =C

An additional ray of light leaves the origin and propagates in the horizontal direction x with speed C, as seen by an observer at rest in the K' frame. We have C = d'/t', where d' is the distance traveled in the time t'. The distance d' could be represented by a horizontal rod of length d'. When d is in the horizontal direction x, d=(d)(square root[1-(v/C)]). Time, t=(t)(square root[1-(v/C)]). Then, as seen by an observer at rest in the K frame C = d'/t' = (d)(square root[1-(v/C)])/(t)(square root[1-(v/C)]) = d/t=C

As seen by an observer at rest in the K frame the speed of light is not constant:
C = d/t within frame K
C = d/(t)(square root[1-(v/C)]) in the vertical direction y in frame K
C = d/t in the horizontal direction x in frame K


Butch
I was not smart enough to know it was impossible to do what I did.

*

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
Dear Dr.

Is the proof of the inconsistency of the speed of light within SR clarified for you?

Here is something completely different:
The equation t=(t)square root(1-v/C) is obtained from the equation (vt) + (Ct) = (Ct). The time dilation factor is 1/square root(1-v/C).

The equation L=(L)square root(1-v/C) is sited as the equation from which the length contraction factor was obtained. The length contraction factor is: square root(1-v/C). The length contraction factor does not apply to length perpendicular to the direction of motion.

How is L=(L)square root(1-v/C) mathematically obtained? How is its directionality mathematically justified? If either of these questions has no mathematically valid answer the length contraction factor, and therefore, length contraction are not scientifically valid. The most ardent supporters of SR would be forced to abandon it in that case.

Thank you,
Butch
I was not smart enough to know it was impossible to do what I did.

*

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
Pursuant to SR, for measuring rods of identical proper length that are perpendicular to the direction of motion, length is the same in all frames and the same for all observers. Pursuant to SR, the speed of light is equal in all frames and the same for all observers. Then, pursuant to the laws of physics, the time for light to propagate the length of measuring rods of identical proper length that are perpendicular to the direction of motion is the same in all frames and the same for all observers. Therefore, in accordance with the laws of physics, time is the same in all frames and the same for all observers.

Inertial frame K is in motion relative to frame K at a speed >0<C. Within frame K as seen by the observer in K light propagates length perpendicular to the direction of motion, d, at speed C in the time t. Within frame K as seen by the observer in K light propagates length perpendicular to the direction of motion, d, at speed C in the time t. Per SR, d=d.

     d=Ct
     Solved for t ---------------  t=d/C
     d=d
     d=Ct
     Substitute d for d
     d=Ct
     Solved for t --------------  t=d/C
     Then, ----------------------  t=t

The time dilation factor and the length contraction factor are derived from the equation (vt) + (Ct) = (Ct) solved for t.

     (vt) + (Ct) = (Ct) --------------- Solve for t
     (Ct) = (Ct) - (vt)
     Ct = t (C - v)
     t = t (1- v/ C)
     t = (t)square root(1- v/ C)------- Solved for t
     t=t    Proved previously
     Substitute t for t
     t = (t)square root(1- v/ C)---Obviously, the formula is invalid.

The formula t = (t)square root(1- v/ C) and everything derived from it are invalid. The formula is dependent on t<t. It is now proved t=t. Therefore:
     t=t/square root(1-v/C)--- Time Dilation is invalid
     L(x)=L(x)square root(1-v/C)---Length Contraction is invalid
     1/square root(1-v/C)--- gamma is invalid

September 18, 2013
Thorntone Errick Butch Murray
butchmurray
« Last Edit: 18/09/2013 11:16:04 by butchmurray »
I was not smart enough to know it was impossible to do what I did.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
To save my having to wade through the maths without a diagram, let's cut to the chase. What experimental result does your theory predict? How is this different from a conventional SR prediction? What was the actual result of the experiment? 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
LENGTH CONTRACTION AND TIME DILATION CONTRADICT THE CONSTANCY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT - MMXIII
By
Thorntone E. Butch Murray
Houston, Texas, USA
June 4, 2013

CONTENTION:
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.
There are very good reasons for physicists such as myself are not willing to spend hours trying to sort out confusing explanations such as this and that's that we've not only done this many times in all our careers many other people try the same thing and in each time it always comes down to one of two things

(1) The author is invariably using alternate definitions of things everyone else is with whom Einstein and his successors used, and that's those based on common sense and

(2) The author is invariably doesn't understand Einstein's derivation to begin with.

As such please go back and show us exactly where in Einstein's article he made an error. Please also prove to us that you understand that Einstein knew that in order for the speed of light to be invariant that both space must be contracted and time be dilated.

If you need help please feel free to follow my own proof at

http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/sr.htm

Specifically;

Time Dilation - http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/light_clock.htm
Length Contraction - http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/lorentz_trans.htm

Also since its a given that if time and space are not altered then neither is the Galilean transformation and therefore the speed of light is not invariant.

*

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
I apologize for the delay.
Butch

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.

Pmb,
On your web page concerning light clocks you state, in effect, L is the same in both frames S and S.  Although true, technically L=Ct/2 in frame S and L=Ct/2 in frame S and L=L. As such, in your Eq2 and Eq3 equations, Ct/2 can substitute for Ct/2. Then:

Your Eq2:
       (Ct/2)=L
Can be restated as:
       (Ct/2)=L
Your Eq3:
       (Ct/2)=(vt/2)+(Ct/2)
Can be restated as:
       (Ct/2)=(vt/2)+(Ct/2)

Equation Eq3 is invalid for values of speed, v, greater than zero. Therefore, equations, factors, formulas etc resulting from or based on this invalid equation are also invalid. That is inclusive of but not limited to the time dilation factor, the length contraction factor and gamma.

Thank you,
Butch
Thorntone E. Murray
« Last Edit: 26/09/2013 17:57:00 by butchmurray »
I was not smart enough to know it was impossible to do what I did.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
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.

No need to apologise, but my question remains: what experimental result does your theory predict? What actually happens when you do the experiment? I'm competely unapologetic about being an experimental physicist.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: alancalverd
I'm competely unapologetic about being an experimental physicist.
And you shouldn't! I love you folks! :)

*

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
pmb
Quote
You write Although true, technically..
It should have been written, True, however, technically

Quote
Ive switched to c for the speed of light and not C since the lowercase c is standard notation in relativity. Youve 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.
For these purposes inertial frame K is in motion relative to frame K at a speed >0<C.  In K time is t, length perpendicular to the direction of motion is proper length L and distance is d. In K time is proper time t, length perpendicular to the direction of motion is proper length L and distance is proper distance d. 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.

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

Quote
These errors led you a succession of errors in the rest of your derivation which was wrong in the end.
Again, please present the succession of errors or state this is also your opinion.

Quote
You should have known that tens of thousands of physicists doing this derivation over every single day for a hundred years
Please cite at least one credible reference for this.

Quote
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
What is the time limit to pick up an error? If not picked up before that time limit does an error cease to be correctable?

Quote
experimental errors would have been found a long time ago too.
What is the time limit for this?

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

alancalverd,
Quote
what experimental result does your theory predict? What actually happens when you do the experiment?
This is not a theory. It elucidates a logic/mathematical error. There are no experiments. There are no predictions.

Thank you,
Butch
I was not smart enough to know it was impossible to do what I did.

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: butchmurray
You write Although true, technically..
It should have been written, True, however, technically
[/quote]
Its not technically difficult at all. Its quite easy to demonstrate this in any laboratory moving at very small speeds (e.g. 1 cm/s) which is consistent with Lorentz contraction and thats simply the derivation to show that wires which are neutral in one frame are not neutral in another frame. This can be found in the Feynman Lectures V-II[1] and in A.P. Frenchs Special Relativity.
 
Quote from: pmb
Quote
Ive switched to c for the speed of light and not C since the lowercase c is standard notation in relativity. Youve 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: butchmurray
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.
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 youre 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: pmb
Your 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: butchmurray
Please 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 dont do anybodys work when they can do if for themselves.

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: butchmurray
This is not a theory. It elucidates a logic/mathematical error. There are no experiments. There are no predictions.
Your attempt does predict that the results of relativity are wrong.

First off theres no need to make more changes, i.e. S to K, just to keep the coordinates started with on the web page so Im using S and S.

T is time as measured in the frame S
t is the time as measured in the frame S

The mixing of primes is unfortunate and should be avoided. But its more confusing to mist primes with frames in this case and one of them has to be changed since you felt the need to change coordinates in the first place.

From the diagram we can see that the Pythagorean theorem gives us

(ct/2)^2 = (vt/2)^2 + L^2

T is defined so that L = cT/2. Therefore

(ct/2)^2 = (vt/2)^2 + (cT/2)^2

Solve for t to obtain

t = T/sqrt[1 (v/c)^2]

Therefore time is dilated.

Your argument on Lorentz contraction was based on that. Therefore that derivation is wrong.


*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: butchmurray
This is not a theory. It elucidates a logic/mathematical error. There are no experiments. There are no predictions.
Your attempt does predict that the results of relativity are wrong.

First off theres no need to make more changes, i.e. S to K, just to keep the coordinates started with on the web page so Im using S and S.

T is time as measured in the frame S
t is the time as measured in the frame S

The mixing of primes is unfortunate and should be avoided. But its more confusing to mist primes with frames in this case and one of them has to be changed since you felt the need to change coordinates in the first place.

From the diagram we can see that the Pythagorean theorem gives us

(ct/2)^2 = (vt/2)^2 + L^2

T is defined so that L = cT/2. Therefore

(ct/2)^2 = (vt/2)^2 + (cT/2)^2

Solve for t to obtain

t = T/sqrt[1 (v/c)^2]

Therefore time is dilated.

Your argument on Lorentz contraction was based on that. Therefore that derivation is wrong.


There are plenty of discussions about the experimental results which prove that time dilation and spatial contraction is true. One only need look.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
This is not a theory. It elucidates a logic/mathematical error. There are no experiments. There are no predictions.

And there we have a problem. Experimentally we find that the predictions of einsteinian relativity are correct, so any mathematical derivation that shows otherwise, is wrong.

No need to go into the maths at all. As in all other aspects of science, from fundamental particle physics, through chemistry and mesoscopic engineering, and right up to astronomy, if it doesn't predict what actually happens, it is wrong, and it is up to the person who derived the "proof" to find out why because the rest of us have more profitable work to do.
« Last Edit: 29/09/2013 23:36:31 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: butchmurray
It elucidates a logic/mathematical error.
As you learned, there never was such an error as you originally thought that there was.

To assume that there was an error which has been around for a century which has gone unnoticed is unwise to say the least. To think that it was the other thousands and thousands of people who made a mistake and not you is an error in itself. I not of not one instance that such a thing has ever happened mathematically, at least not at this level of math and application. I'm applying Occamz razor here, of course.

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: pmb
experimental errors would have been found a long time ago too.

Quote from: butchmurray
What is the time limit for this?
Did you really believe that you could slip that by as a clever response and that we dim-wits wouldn't know how to answer this kind of questions?

Answer - A scientist wouldn't need to ask and a non-scientist wouldn't understand the answer. The availability of the precision required was available at the time the experiment done and the paper published. So the limit is before the time available that the experimental evidence was available and considered for this experiment.

Experimental verification for length contraction is provided here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction#Experimental_verifications

Quote
Please, let us confine discussions to facts that can be referenced and label opinions as such.
We have been. What else did you think we were discussing?
« Last Edit: 30/09/2013 01:25:18 by Pmb »

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4072
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
I understand what he is saying. It is that for a length of rod L, if it is contracted to the external observer then the distance that light is seen to travel in that frame, from an external frame, is also contracted. Therefore light does not appear to travel as far in the same amount of time relative to the two frames. What he fails to appreciate is the differing temporal spaces occupied.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4072
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
I would advise thinking about this at the Planck scale before going macroscopic. :-)

*

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile

Thank you all for your input.


This is an alternate description:
 
1. Inertial frame K is in motion relative to frame K at a speed >0<C.

2. A measuring rod of length y is perpendicular to the direction of motion in frame K. An identical measuring rod of length y is perpendicular to the direction of motion in frame K.

3. Per the Lorentz Transformations y=y.

4. The speed formula is t=d/v: Time equals distance divided by speed.

5. In frame K light of speed C propagates distance y, the length of the measuring rod in K, in the time t, t=y/C.

6. In frame K light of speed C propagates distance y, the length of the measuring rod in K, in the time t, t=y/C.

7.        t=y/C    in frame K
8. Per the Lorentz Transformations:
9.        y=y
10. Replace y with y in frame K
11.       t=y/C    in frame K
12.       t=y/C     in frame K
13. Both t and t equal y/C. Then:
14.       t=t

15. Assessed by an observer in frame K and assessed by an observer in frame K:
16.      y=y    The two measuring rods are of equal length.
17.       C      The speed of light is equal in both frames.
18.      t=t    The time is equal for light to propagate the equal length of the measuring rods.

Butchmurray
« Last Edit: 10/10/2013 07:09:30 by butchmurray »
I was not smart enough to know it was impossible to do what I did.

*

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
(Continued from my last reply)

19. In inertial frame K a light path that is perpendicular to the direction of motion is equal in length to the measuring rod of length y that is perpendicular to the direction of motion in frame K.

20. Then, the length of the light path in frame K is y.

21. Light propagates the length of the measuring rod in frame K in the time t, then, light also propagates the length of the light path in frame K in the time t for Ct.

22. In K for the measuring rod and the light path Ct=y.

23. In frame K a light path that is perpendicular to the direction of motion is equal in length to the measuring rod of length y that is perpendicular to the direction of motion in frame K.

24. Then, the length of the light path in frame K is y.

25. Light propagates the length of the measuring rod in frame K in the time t, then, light also propagates the length of the light path in frame K in the time t for Ct.

26. In K for the measuring rod and the light path Ct=y.

27. The equation (Ct)+(vt)=(Ct) is based on a right triangle and the Pythagorean Theorem.

28. Ct is the hypotenuse and vt is the horizontal side of the right triangle.

29. The vertical side of the right triangle is Ct, the light path of length y that is perpendicular to the direction of motion in frame K. Ct=y.

30. Per the Lorentz transformations y=y.

31. Ct=y and Ct=y then Ct=y

32. Ct=y and Ct=y then Ct=Ct

33. In the equation (Ct)+(vt)=(Ct) substitute Ct for Ct.

34. (Ct)+(vt)=(Ct)

35. The equation is invalid for v>0.

36. As such, the time dilation formula, the length contraction formula, gamma and all else based on the equation are invalid.

Butchmurray
I was not smart enough to know it was impossible to do what I did.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
A splendid conclusion. What experimental result does it explain or predict?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4072
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Is this why my GPS sends me the wrong way up a one way street.

*

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
Jefferyh,
Very probably not.

Alancalverd,
Here is an example that could be considered a thought experiment.

1. Inertial frame K is in motion relative to inertial frame K. All lengths are perpendicular to the direction of motion, in the direction y.

2. In frame K a measuring rod and a light path of equal length are perpendicular to the direction of motion.

3. That equal length is 300,000km.

4. A measuring rod and a light path that are identical to those in frame K are perpendicular to the direction of motion in frame K.

6. Per the Lorentz transformations as presented in SR y=y.

7. Then, the measuring rod and light path in K are equal in length to their counterparts in frame K and equal to each other.

8. Light propagates at the speed of 300,000km per second for all observers.

9. Measured in frame K, light takes one second to propagate the length of the light path in frame K.

10. Measured in frame K, light takes one second to propagate the length of the light path in frame K.

11. The speed of frame K is .866C relative to frame K.

12. The time dilation factor for .866C is 2.

13. As such, an occurrence in K that takes one second of frame K time takes 2 seconds of frame K time.

14. Light takes light one second of frame K time to propagate the length of the light path in frame K.

15. One second of frame K time equals 2 seconds of frame K time.

16. Then, it takes 2 seconds of frame K time for light in K to propagate the length of the light path in frame K.

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.

19. The light path and the measuring rod in K are of equal length. Then relative to length in K, the length of the measuring rod in K is 600,000km.

20. The length of the identical measuring rod in frame K is 300,000km.

21. That inequality is in direct conflict with y=y

22. When time, t, is dilated in K relative to time in K length, d, of light paths (and so measuring rods of length equal to the light paths) is increased by the same factor because C is constant.

23. Mathematically: C=d/t. It is obvious that when t is factored d must be factored identically to maintain the constancy of C.

24. For y(d) to equal y(d), there can be no time dilation. Time (t and t) must be equal and the same in both frames.

25. Statements 14, 15 and 16 clearly demonstrate that as a direct result of time dilation light takes unequal times to propagate the length of a single light path in K. That is not possible if the speed of light is constant.

butchmurray

I was not smart enough to know it was impossible to do what I did.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Your error is in steps 17 onward. The observer in K is aware that K' is moving and therefore corrects for the apparent time dilatation of events in K' space. No problem - GPS satellites do it all the time.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
Please be more specific. Exactly what is wrong with which step.

Thank you,
Butch
I was not smart enough to know it was impossible to do what I did.

*

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
This is as uncomplicated as it gets.

Per SR: y=y (length perpendicular to the direction of motion)
Per SR: the speed of light, C, is constant
Inertial frame O is in motion relative to inertial frame O at a speed >0<C.

In frame O: C=y/t
In frame O: C=y/t
Per LT: y=y
Then:
In frame O: C=y/t
In frame O: C=y/t
Therefore:
t=t

Per the laws of physics, time in frame O (t) and time in O (t) are equal when C is constant and y=y. That is not a theory.

This equation is fundamental to SR:
      (Ct)+(vt)=(Ct)
Substitute t for t
      (Ct)+(vt)=(Ct)

The equation is invalid for v>0.

The time dilation factor, the length contraction factor, gamma and all else derived from the equation are invalid.

Thank you,
Butch
I was not smart enough to know it was impossible to do what I did.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Quote
Per the laws of physics, time in frame O (t) and time in O (t) are equal

only when measured within the relevant frame. Time dilatation as predicted by relativity (i.e. the laws of physics) turns out AFAIK to be exactly as measured by experiment, which is why I'm interested in the experimental predictions of your theory. O(t') = O'(t), but not O(t). 

Once you have stated that
Quote
Inertial frame O is in motion relative to inertial frame O at a speed >0<C
you are out of the realms of Newtonian physics, which only applies in a single inertial frame. O(t') = O'(t), but not O(t) or O'(t') unless v = 0.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
From Dr. A            Oct. 28, 2013

Dear Butch,

if one does not specify what a mathematical equation refers to in physical reality, one can prove or disprove anything.

You say:

This Equation:
      (Ct)+(vt)=(Ct)
Solved for t:
      t=t/sqrt(1-v/C)     Is the time dilation formula.

Well, then it seems that, if it refers to time dilation transformation, is correct.

But about the same equation you also state:

This equation is fundamental to SR:
       (Ct)+(vt)=(Ct)
Substitute t for t
       (Ct)+(vt)=(Ct)
The equation is invalid for v>0.

So, what does your equation refer to? What physics example refers to?
Is it t = t' or is it  t=t/sqrt(1-v/C)?

Best,

I was not smart enough to know it was impossible to do what I did.

*

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
Dear Dr. A                  Oct. 30, 2013

Clarification #1

Within SR the speed of light, C, is constant. Within SR a length that
is perpendicular to the direction of motion is equal in frame O and
frame O, y=y. Therefore, t=t. That means that time in both frames
transpires at an equal rate. Time in one frame is not dilated relative
to time in another frame. Again, t=t.

Whenever it was stated that t=t/sqrt(1-v/C) is the time dilation
formula, it was qualified with The equation is invalid for v>0. All
of the other equations were/are qualified identically.

Thank you,
Butch
I was not smart enough to know it was impossible to do what I did.

*

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
From Dr. A        Oct. 31, 2013

Dear Butch,                   

it seems that for you the equation

" t=t/sqrt(1-v/C) is the time dilation
formula, it was qualified with The equation is invalid for v>0."

does not hold.
However, SR uses it to describe the phenomenon of clock retardation, proved experimentally by the mu meson decay when in motion.
Therefore, it seems to be correct and hold for such a phenomenon.

Is it not, as I told you, that equations assume physical meaning when referred to a specific physical phenomenon?

In conclusion, your statement

"Within SR the speed of light, C, is constant. Within SR a length that
is perpendicular to the direction of motion is equal in frame O and
frame O, y=y. Therefore, t=t."

is correct when it refers to the time t taken by a ray of light perpendicular to direction of motion in O, as measured in S, to travel a distance d,
AND
to the time t' taken by a second ray of light perpendicular to direction of motion in O', as measured in S', to travel a distance d' = d.

So, t = t' for the case above and  t=t/sqrt(1-v/C) for the case of the mu meson.
No contradiction.

Best,
I was not smart enough to know it was impossible to do what I did.

*

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
Dear Dr.

Inertial frame S is in motion relative to frame S at a speed v>0<C.

From the equation (Ct)=(vt)+(Ct), H. Lorentz and A. Einstein produced the time dilation and length contraction factors, gamma and much more.

The equation is represented by the uppermost right triangle in Fig. 1. In that triangle the length of the horizontal side labeled vt represents the distance frame S advanced relative to frame S in the time t.  The length of the vertical side labeled Ct represents the length of a light path that is perpendicular to the direction of motion in frame S.  The length of the hypotenuse labeled Ct is the distance the light in the light path in frame S traversed as seen from frame S.

To the right of that triangle in Fig. 1, the vertical line labeled Ct represents the length of a light path that is perpendicular to the direction of motion in frame S. It is identical to the light path labeled Ct in S.

Light at speed C traversed the light path of length y that is perpendicular to the direction of motion in frame S in the time t. Then, in frame S:
      Ct=y
Light at speed C traversed an identical light path of length y that is perpendicular to the direction of motion in frame S in the time t. Then, in frame S:
      Ct=y
Per SR y=y. Relative to length y in frame S, length y in frame S is the same. Substitute y with y for the length of the light path in S. Then, in frame S:
      Ct=y
In frame S, Ct=y. In frame S, Ct=y. Then, Ct=Ct. The light paths are equal in length.

The equation used by H. Lorentz and A. Einstein:
      (Ct)=(vt)+(Ct)
   Substitute Ct, the light path in S with its equivalent, Ct the light path in frame S.
      (Ct)=(vt)+(Ct)
The equation is invalid for v>0.

In the lower of the two right triangles in Fig. 1 the vertical side of the triangle, the light path labeled Ct which is in frame S, is replaced with the light path of equal length labeled Ct which is in frame S. The hypotenuse and the vertical side of the right triangle are the same length, Ct, which is invalid.

The right triangle and the equation are invalid. Therefore, the time dilation factor, the length contraction factor, gamma and all else derived from the equation are invalid.

The results of the mu meson experiments have an alternate explanation.


Time Dilation and Length Contraction Derivation per SR:
The equation that is fundamental to SR:
      (Ct)=(vt)+(Ct)
   Reorder
      (vt)+(Ct)=(Ct)
   Subtract (vt) from both sides
      (Ct)=(Ct)-(vt)
   Simplify
      Ct=Ct-vt
   Simplify
      Ct=t(C-v)
   Divide by C
      t=t(1-v/C)
   Square root
      t=t*sqrt(1-v/C)

t=t*sqrt(1-v/C) Relative to time t in frame S, time t in frame S is dilated by sqrt(1-v/C).

x=x*sqrt(1-v/C) Relative to length x parallel to the direction of motion in frame S, length x parallel to the direction of motion in frame S is contracted by sqrt(1-v/C).

Thank you,
Butch
I was not smart enough to know it was impossible to do what I did.

*

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
The Least Complicated Proof

Inertial frame K is in motion relative to frame K at a speed >0<C.

For any light path, at speed C light traverses the light path of length y in the time t, y=Ct.

A light path of length y is perpendicular to the direction of motion in frame K. An identical light path of length y is perpendicular to the direction of motion in frame K.

The seminal equation H. Lorentz and A. Einstein used to produce numerous formulations such as time dilation, length contraction and gamma is: 
      (Ct)=(Ct)+(vt)

For the light path in frame K:
      y=Ct
For the identical light path in frame K:
      y=Ct
Per SR, y=y. Then:
      Ct=y=y=Ct    any two of these are equal.
For this purpose:
      Ct=Ct
The seminal equation:
      (Ct)=(Ct)+(vt)
Substitute Ct for Ct:
      (Ct)=(Ct)+(vt)

This seminal equation, which is fundamental to SR, is invalid.

Thorntone Murray - butchmurray
November 17, 2013


 
I was not smart enough to know it was impossible to do what I did.

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
The Least Complicated Proof

That's more like it, and the diagram helps a lot. Now I can finally be bothered to check to see if you're making the same kind of mistake you did in the past.

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

And you're making the same old mistake - you just hid it in complexity for a time, but now that you've made it easy to see what you're on about, it's now possible to find the error in one minute instead of wasting many hours on it.

y' > y

SR does not require y' to be = to y. SR requires a measurement of y performed from frame k to produce a value for y which is the same as a measurement of y' performed from frame k'. SR does not require y and y' to be the same when measured within a single frame.

*

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
Hi David.

Albert Einstein (18791955).  Relativity: The Special and General Theory.  1920.
XI.  The Lorentz Transformation
Paragraph 4:
A. Einstein clearly states, y=y and z=z

Here is the link:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/11.html

Then, it holds:
For the light path in frame K:
      y=Ct
For the identical light path in frame K:
      y=Ct
Per SR, y=y. Then:
      Ct=y=y=Ct    any two of these are equal.
For this purpose:
      Ct=Ct
The seminal equation:
      (Ct)=(Ct)+(vt)
Substitute Ct for Ct:
      (Ct)=(Ct)+(vt)

This seminal equation, which is fundamental to SR, is invalid.

Thanks.
Butch
I was not smart enough to know it was impossible to do what I did.

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Hi David.

Albert Einstein (18791955).  Relativity: The Special and General Theory.  1920.
XI.  The Lorentz Transformation
Paragraph 4:
A. Einstein clearly states, y=y and z=z

Firstly, because you didn't show in your diagram which direction you're moving one of the frames in, I made the mistake of thinking it was vertical (on the basis that the vertical Ct' in one triangle is replaced with Ct in the other). It now appears from reading your text more carefully that you intend the motion of frame k' to be horizontal, so you can disregard my previous answer.

Quote
For the light path in frame K:
      y=Ct

That would be your isolated vertical line to the right of your diagram.

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

That would be the sloping line in the triangle to the top left of your diagram which you have incorrectly labelled as Ct even though it is clearly longer than Ct. You then make a second mistake of labelling the vertical line in that triangle as Ct' instead of Ct and run on into an argument that Ct must be equal to Ct' on the basis of these errors.
« Last Edit: 20/11/2013 21:24:57 by David Cooper »

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4072
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
This sums up your problem butch. Sorry about the shaky graphic it is all the effort I could muster for this one.

P.S. Being length contracted the dilated frame sees the photon as traveling twice the distance.
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 02:02:57 by jeffreyH »

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4072
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
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.

Actually that has just given me an insight. At nearer to light speed velocities the mass must generate stronger gravitation and warp the spacetime in the direction of travel. This is why light speed cannot be broken. It is effectively becoming more and more singular as it nears light speed.

This also implies that a black hole can be accelerated to near light speed. This would explain why galaxies appear to be receding at near or exceeding light speed across cosmic distances as they contain super-massive black holes. Interesting.
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 02:26:04 by jeffreyH »

*

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
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.
http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html?pop=yes&pid=611

I guarantee you it will hold your interest and give you a deeper insight on the subject. Please let me know what you think.

Butch
I was not smart enough to know it was impossible to do what I did.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4072
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
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.
http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html?pop=yes&pid=611

I guarantee you it will hold your interest and give you a deeper insight on the subject. Please let me know what you think.

Butch

Firstly, I already know about Lorentz transformations. Secondly, do you believe I will find some error in relativity by studying this?

*

Offline butchmurray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 194
  • If I had my druthers, I would have druthers
    • View Profile
jeffreyH,
You wrote:
Quote
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.
Here Einstein explains frames:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/11.html
Albert Einstein (18791955).  Relativity: The Special and General Theory.  1920.
XI.  The Lorentz Transformation
Paragraph 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:
Quote
Firstly, I already know about Lorentz transformations.

You wrote:
Quote
Secondly, 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
I was not smart enough to know it was impossible to do what I did.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4072
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
jeffreyH,
You wrote:
Quote
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.
Here Einstein explains frames:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/11.html
Albert Einstein (18791955).  Relativity: The Special and General Theory.  1920.
XI.  The Lorentz Transformation
Paragraph 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:
Quote
Firstly, I already know about Lorentz transformations.

You wrote:
Quote
Secondly, 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

It is the train that has the mass and the train is moving. It is the train's frame of reference that is being compared. I never said a frame has mass. The path of light through a moving dilated frame is straightforward. What is the exact problem?
« Last Edit: 24/11/2013 14:21:35 by jeffreyH »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Please be more specific. Exactly what is wrong with which step.

Thank you,
Butch


quite simply

Quote
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.

That calculation is wrong because the observer in each frame knows that the other is moving (because the received clock pulses are out of sync) and therefore applies the necessary relativistic correction to the signals he receives, and calculates 300,000 km . Every subsequent step is therefore incorrect since it begins with an incorrect assumption. 

In short, you are assuming relativity is incorrect in order to prove that it is incorrect. All that is necessary to prove that it is correct is to state that each observer knows that the other has an identical clock. 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance