The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. Are the Lorentz Transformations legit?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Are the Lorentz Transformations legit?

  • 1 Replies
  • 3291 Views
  • 2 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline McQueen (OP)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 763
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 18 times
    • https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php
Are the Lorentz Transformations legit?
« on: 26/02/2019 04:51:10 »
Wrong post.
« Last Edit: 26/02/2019 06:48:56 by McQueen »
Logged
Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it is wrong.?
 



Offline Kryptid

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 8082
  • Activity:
    1.5%
  • Thanked: 514 times
Re: Are the Lorentz Transformations legit?
« Reply #1 on: 26/02/2019 05:58:53 »
Quote from: McQueen on 26/02/2019 04:51:10
But c = 1 is supposedly used as a dimensionless constant, if this is the case it should always be possible to substitute the real value of c which is  m/sec into the equation and still get the same result. It turns out that this cannot be done. It cannot be done because the equation yields the square root of a negative number, this means that it is impossible to substitute the real value of the speed of light into the equation and it will always remain as c =1. This means in effect that the whole equation is a charade and has absolutely no meaning.

Let's find out if this claim is true.

We'll see what happens when we consider an object moving at 73% the speed of light. In the case where c = 1, that would make v = 0.73. The component of the equation we are interested in is v2/c2, so we substitute the values to get (0.73)2/(1)2. According to the order of operations, exponents are calculated before division, so (0.73)2 = 0.5329 and (1)2 = 1. So we end up with 0.5329/1, which is simply 0.5329.

Now we will find out what happens when we use c = 299,792,458 m/s. 73% the speed of light in this case would therefore be 218,848,494.34 m/s. Continuing the calculation, (218,848,494.34)2 = 47,894,663,474,885,012.0356 and (299,792,458)2 = 89,875,517,873,681,764. Now we divide 47,894,663,474,885,012.0356 by 89,875,517,873,681,764 and we get 0.5329.

It's exactly the same number.
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags: special relativity  / henri poincare 
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.338 seconds with 27 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.