0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Well, after a little messing around with the numbers, the obvious problem with the parallelogram shape came up: the relativity of simultaneity.
Pretty awful that I should have to do trivial stuff this for a physics expert who can't handle the numbers in the blink of an eye, but here's a link to a page about length contraction that he might trust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction
There is nothing there that anyone sane should dispute. It is clear that Lorentz and Einstein never looked at this at all.
Quote from: PhysBang on 08/08/2016 17:12:56Well, after a little messing around with the numbers, the obvious problem with the parallelogram shape came up: the relativity of simultaneity.If we take a Frame A photo of Rail B and the new rail using my ref-frame camera, it will give us a picture of two rails aligned east-west, each with its width length-contracted to half a metre and with a half metre wide space between them. The squares on the train, if not under any stress to warp them, must come out in the image looking like the picture I attached to the end of my previous post. There is no magical adjustment to its shape that can make it fit neatly between the rails because the shape I've shown is the Frame A shape for it. If a carriage is ten metres long, for its material to be unstressed it will have to have both ends embedded deep into the rails, which is technically known as a crash.
How many times do I have to prove the case before people are prepared to come forward and say they recognise it as correct, or that they can't find any fault in it? Where are you? Where are the powerful, rational minds? We have one person so far who appears to have accepted that I have a point. Do I have to take this to the mathematicians to get some action on this? It should be on the news. Relativity has been blown out of the water and all you can say is nothing?
There are quite a few numbers here, and it pays to be careful, since you obviously have not been careful.
You are half-assing your efforts by just looking at length contraction. You are ignoring when elements on the train match up with the tracks. And because of this, you have a distorted picture of the relevant physics.
Probably 99% of the time that someone thinks they have a problem with relativity theory it is because they haven't taken relativity of simultaneity into account.
QuoteThere is nothing there that anyone sane should dispute. It is clear that Lorentz and Einstein never looked at this at all.Nope, it is clear that you think you can get by with just adding in length contraction without considering the actual coordinates involved. Which is why I asked to see your calculations and you have revealed to us that you haven't actually done them.
You might be surprised to learn how no object is absolutely rigid.
However, you are also ignoring when the different parts of the train are in contact with the different parts of the track. If you were to actually go through your scenario and work out the coordinates, you would find that you are misrepresenting what is "seen" in an instant of Frame A.
All you have to do is make your case once. Just once. Yet you just haven't done the work. You think that you can get by in a relativity example by just incorporating length contraction and it doesn't work like that. I'm not going to use words like, "slow witted," but you might want to think twice before you do.
Dude, I had a look at your webpage. I'm sorry.
You believe what you want to believe, I'm not going to pressure you.
If you submit it, you have to do the math. That's it.
Just out of curiosity: you have an education website, but you have never attended any university level education?
Now, what point were you trying to make by asking about this?
Quote from: David Cooper on 10/08/2016 19:33:54Now, what point were you trying to make by asking about this? I was curious, given that you displayed ignorance of the form of journal articles.
Similarly, the details of the transformations from one system of coordinates to another are what they are for a reason.
You are free to believe what you want to believe, but you should know that you will be held to a high standard if you want to publish your work and that standard will include at least recognizing what trained physicists expect from a transformation from one system of coordinates to another. This will include including the time coordinate in all translations.
Quote from: jeffreyH on 04/08/2016 08:26:47Hi Jeffrey,, but if you imagine the universe as being contained in the skin of an expanding bubble, the absolute frame of reference is tied to the centre of the bubble, which is a point not found inside the universe, and no frame of reference inside the universe can be the absolute frame. At every point inside the universe there is a preferred frame of reference which is different from the preferred frame at any other point, but they are all preferred frames of reference regardless, being the frame at that point which matches up closest to the absolute frame. On the local scale though, such as within our solar system, you can consider that all points in that local space have the same frame as their preferred frame of reference, even if that isn't quite true, because the errors will be too small to have any relevance. As I see it there is an absolute frame of reference at the center of the universe where the big bang took place. The expanding bubble of energy exploded along the bubble simultaneously billions of times to form the center of the galaxies. the gravitational field from all the galaxies reach the center which is 13.78 billion light years from the surface of the universe. At the same time a sphere of 27.56 billion years is the outer sphere of the universe. This is a perfect sphere as well. So you are correct in my opinion that we have one absolutely stationary point which is not within our visible universe. It seems to me that everything else is distorted common mode but relative frame of references depends upon the gravitational field. The sun is a relative reference. The earth is another relative reference. Everything within a preferred frame of reference is distorted equally but we see a sphere as a sphere because we are distorted as well.
Hi Jeffrey,, but if you imagine the universe as being contained in the skin of an expanding bubble, the absolute frame of reference is tied to the centre of the bubble, which is a point not found inside the universe, and no frame of reference inside the universe can be the absolute frame. At every point inside the universe there is a preferred frame of reference which is different from the preferred frame at any other point, but they are all preferred frames of reference regardless, being the frame at that point which matches up closest to the absolute frame. On the local scale though, such as within our solar system, you can consider that all points in that local space have the same frame as their preferred frame of reference, even if that isn't quite true, because the errors will be too small to have any relevance.
Quote from: PhysBang on 09/08/2016 21:29:06If you submit it, you have to do the math. That's it.I've done all the maths that's needed to prove the case, assuming that it's read by someone who understands relativity.
Indeed, and it's a bad reason - it's based on a belief that different frames all work the same way, but I've shown that a person in Frame B sending things along Rail B will observe them to warp and to do so more the faster they go. Any system for doing the transformations which doesn't find that result is producing errors, hiding this warping with distortions which precisely cancel out the warping that should be there.
At no point have you dared to commit yourself to stating whether you agree with it or not, but you ought to.
The next step is to synchronise clocks for Frame B, pick a time to "take a photo", then run all the clocks as you imagine the shape moving east along the rail.
The only reason we've missed this for a hundred years is that we trusted Lorentz, Einstein and the other pioneers of relativity - they failed to explore this properly but gave the impression that they had, and everyone has just believed them ever since without bothering to check thoroughly.
I believed them too: I only stumbled upon it by accident while having a conversation with an Einsteinist about rotating discs.
I know that you believe that. But any physicist who looks at your argument will reject it because you have not actually discussed the reference frames.
All reference frames used in the Special Theory of Relativity have their own time coordinate and you do not include this in your reasoning. Until you do, no physicist will take your argument seriously.
You are free to believe that the time coordinate is not important.
However, since the people who work with the theory have all gone through training that demonstrates to them that the theory does not work properly without taking the time coordinate into account, they have a reason for rejecting your argument.
QuoteAt no point have you dared to commit yourself to stating whether you agree with it or not, but you ought to.As someone trained in the use of the Special Theory of Relativity, I can't recognize your claims as an intelligible part of that theory, since they do not use the theory properly. Since your claims do not include transformations to the time coordinate, they do not meet the standard I have been trained to expect for such work. Because of this, I can't recognize your argument as one that is about the Special Theory of Relativity, instead it is an argument about David Cooper's Theory of Relativity.
QuoteThe next step is to synchronise clocks for Frame B, pick a time to "take a photo", then run all the clocks as you imagine the shape moving east along the rail.According to the Special Theory of Relativity, one cannot have a frame without a set definition of synchronized clocks. These clocks will not be synchronized to the clocks in the other frames in your example.
Again, you are free to use David Cooper's Theory of Relativity. However, since you show that it is not consistent, most people will continue to use the Special Theory of Relativity.
Given the vast literature on relativity theory, including the prevalence of homework problems combining reference frames and the decades of crank attempts to deny relativity theory, it is extremely unlikely that someone would miss this kind of combination.
Anyone who would work through such a scenario would be trained to work from the actual Lorentz transformations, not merely use purely spatial length contractions.
This means that they would include the time coordinate in their work and when considering how something looks at a certain time, they would have to consider where everything looks at the time of each frame.
Since transformation the time from one frame to another depends on position, this can change the shape of objects from one frame to another.
That one person you had a conversation with may have been mistaken.
Reading your original post, it is not clear what you believe is the position on rotation taken by the Special Theory of Relativity. Talking to one person is a poor form of education. Did you read about rotation in any textbook on the Special Theory of Relativity?
How were you educated on the Special Theory of Relativity?
You keep saying that you have done the work to convince, "someone who understands relativity," but you do not want to use the Special Theory of Relativity, you only want to use length contraction. Someone who understands the theory would like to see the theory applied in an argument that purports to be demonstrating a contradiction in the theory.