 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / November 2008A friendly request to Ken Seto from Uncle Ben
Dear Ken, For weeks now you have been telling me, as we discuss elementary problems in Specialk Relativiy, that I have been executing the Lorentz Transformation incorrectly. Maybe you are right, Ken. Educate me a little. Tell me, what is the Lorentz Transformation? In particular, 1. What is it for? It is a tool, I know, but what is it used for? 2. Show me a very simple example of how it is used for any problem you like. If it turns out that I have bveen misusing the Lorentz Transformation for all the years I have taught relativity, I will be very forever grateful to you for correcting me. Uncle Ben > Dear Ken, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > for all the years I have taught relativity, I will be very forever > grateful to you for correcting me. When M and M' are coincide with each other: The transit time for the light fronts from +x and -x arrive at M simultaneously is L/c from both directions. The light path length for the light fronts from +x and -x to arrive at M' is gamma*L Therefore the transit time for the light fronts from +x and -x to arrive at M' simultaneously is gamma*L/c. Ken Seto > > Dear Ken, > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > - Show quoted text - What you say may or may not be true, but I don't see any Lorentz Transformation yet. What is the Lorentz Transformation? > > > Dear Ken, > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > What you say may or may not be true, but I don't see any Lorentz > Transformation yet. What is the Lorentz Transformation? Event 1 t'1 = gamma(t1 - vx1/c*c) Lorentz Transformation, track -> train Event 2 t'2 = gamma(t2 - vx2/c*c) Lorentz Transformation, track - > train When M and M' coincide with each other t1 = t2 =0 Therefore: Event 1 arrive at M': t'1 = -vx1/c^2 Event 2 arrive at M': t'2 = -vx2/c^2 Since x1 = x2 therefore the light fronts from events 1 and 2 will arrive at M simultaneously. Ken Seto - Hide quoted text - > - Show quoted text - > > > > Dear Ken, > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Thank you for showing some Lorentz Transformation equations. But if you examine the statement of the problem cafrefully you will see that x1 is at the caboose of the train when the lightning strikes it and x2 is at the engine of the train when the lightning strikes it. So if you want to say that x1 = x2, you are saying that the length of the train w.r.t. the track is ZERO. In other words, the train is a point train! I don't think so. And if you realize that x2 > x1, for a real train, you will see that t'2 > t'1, and the simultaneity is, indeed, GONE. Uncle Ben On Nov 24, 10:19 am, kenshito <kens...@erinet.com> wrote: > Since x1 = x2 therefore the light fronts from events 1 and 2 will > arrive at M simultaneously. > > Ken Shito You are approaching 80, your window of opportunity in understanding SR is narrowing rapidly due to the advancement of your Alzheimer. Then again, it might not be the Alzheimer, you were that stupid al along. > > > > Dear Ken, > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > - Show quoted text - you for showing some Lorentz Transformation equations. But if you examine the statement of the problem cafrefully you will see that x1 is at the caboose of the train when the lightning strikes it and x2 is at the engine of the train when the lightning strikes it. So if you want to say that x1 = x2, you are saying that the length of the train w.r.t. the track is ZERO. In other words, the train is a point train! I don't think so. And if you realize that x2 > x1, for a real train, you will see that t'1 > t'2, and the simultaneity is, indeed, GONE. Uncle Ben > > > > > Dear Ken, > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > it and x2 is at the engine of the train when the lightning strikes > it. NO, NO, NO....x1 and x2 are points in space where the strikes occur simultaneously and these points are at equal distance from the M and M' observers. The locations of the ends of the train is irrelevant. Ken Seto > So if you want to say that x1 = x2, you are saying that the length of > the train w.r.t. the track is ZERO. In other words, the train is a > point train! > I don't think so. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Nov 25, 6:27 am, kenshito <kens...@erinet.com> wrote: > > But if you examine the statement of the problem cafrefully you will > > see that x1 is at the caboose of the train when the lightning strikes [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ken SHito 80 years and counting, Ken Shito. Your Alzheimer is getting worse. > On Nov 25, 6:27 am, kenshito <kens...@erinet.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 80 years and counting, Ken Shito. > Your Alzheimer is getting worse. You say ....x1 and x2 are points in space where the strikes occur > > simultaneously and these points are at equal distance from the M and > > M' observers. The locations of the ends of the train is irrelevant. "The points in space where the strikes occur simultaneously" ARE the ends of the train. Yes they are at equal distances from the M and M' observers -- we agree on that. But the events in question are the lightning strikes. You said the LT was necessary to decide if the strikes were simultaneous w.r.t. the train. The strikes are the events in question, and as you know now, the locations of the events, together with their times, ARE the INPUTS to the Lorentz Transformation equations. So they are certainly not irrelevant. They are just as important as the times of the events. Uncle Ben > > On Nov 25, 6:27 am, kenshito <kens...@erinet.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > ends of the train. Yes they are at equal distances from the M and M' > observers -- we agree on that. I assumed that x1 is the distance from the front of the train to the observer M and x2 is the distance from the rear of the train to the observer M. > But the events in question are the lightning strikes. You said the LT > was necessary to decide if the strikes were simultaneous w.r.t. the > train. Yes. >The strikes are the events in question, and as you know now, > the locations of the events, together with their times, ARE the INPUTS > to the Lorentz Transformation equations. The transformed length of x1 and x2 into the M' frame is as follows: x'1=x'2= -gamma*x1= -gamma*x2 Therefore the transit time from both directions is: t'1=t'2 = -gamma*v*x1/c^2=-gamma*v*x2/c^2 Therefore the light fronts arrive at M' simultaneously Ken Seto >So they are certainly not > irrelevant. They are just as important as the times of the events. > > Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > > "The points in space where the strikes occur simultaneously" ARE the > > ends of the train. Yes they are at equal distances from the M and M' [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > observer M and x2 is the distance from the rear of the train to the > observer M. Incorrect. x1 is the spatial coordinate of the rear of the train when the lightning strikes. x2 is the spatial coordinate of the front of te train when the lightning strikes. The origin of coordinates is in the center of the train at that moment, called M. x2 is to the right of M and is positive. x1 is to the left of M and is negative. Their magnitudes are equal, but their signs are opposite. That is why x2-x1 = L w.r.t. track. This is the difference between distances and coordinates. Remember your analytic geometry and Cartesian coordinates. Uncle Ben > > On Nov 25, 6:27 am, kenshito <kens...@erinet.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > was necessary to decide if the strikes were simultaneous w.r.t. the > train. This brings up an interesting question: Why would anybody talk about simultaneity w.r.t. "the train" ? In ANY reference frame in the world you will find at least one point where 2 arbitrary events would be recorded as simultaneous. The given discussion is about simultaneity regarding ONE point (a single point) in each frame, as simultaneity w.r.t. a frame, as a whole, was never mentioned/defined ! Not here nor elsewhere! At least I have never seen it! (Correct me if I am wrong!) Then the results, whatever they are, should not be interpreted as being meaningful for the IRFs themselves, should they? The strikes are the events in question, and as you know now, > the locations of the events, together with their times, ARE the INPUTS > to the Lorentz Transformation equations. So they are certainly not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Best regards, LL > > > On Nov 25, 6:27 am, kenshito <kens...@erinet.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Have you read the original problem? That is the context. You can find as the lead post in a thread called "R of S for Dummies." Uncle Ben >>>>>> Dear Ken, >> [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] >> the train w.r.t. the track is ZERO. In other words, the train is a >> point train! Ken I'm afraid you missed that clarification - you would be wise to contemplate about it. In this one-dimensional problem (as y1=y2 and z1=z2), if x1=x2, this can only mean that the two points are the same point. Do you think that the strikes were said to occur at the same point? And, as Ben said, that the train is a point train? >> I don't think so. >> >> And if you realize that x2 > x1, for a real train, you will see that >> t'1 > t'2, and the simultaneity is, indeed, GONE. Indeed. Harald > >>>>>> Dear Ken, > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > think that the strikes were said to occur at the same point? And, as Ben > said, that the train is a point train? Helloooo....the points of the flashes are at the ends of the train when M and M' are coincide with each other. So how does that mean that the train is a point train? x1 is the distance of M to the front of the train and x2 is the distance of M to the rear of the train since M is at the middle of the train then x1=x2. Ken Seto > >> I don't think so. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > - Show quoted text - [...] >>>> you for showing some Lorentz Transformation equations. >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Ken Seto You are really clueless (eventhough we gav you the clues). In the LT, x1 is NOT a distance; similarly, x2 is NOT a distance! Harald >>>> I don't think so. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> - Show quoted text - > [...] > >>>> you for showing some Lorentz Transformation equations. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > You are really clueless (eventhough we gav you the clues). In the LT, x1 is > NOT a distance; similarly, x2 is NOT a distance! No you are the clueless one. x1 and x2 are coordinates of the ends of the train. But these coordinates are irrelavent....they have no effect on the transit times needed for the light fronts from the original points of the flashes to arrive at M'. Ken Seto > Harald > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > > [...] > > >>>> you for showing some Lorentz Transformation equations. [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Correct. They have no effect on the transit times. But they have a great effect on the starting times of the light travelling to the front and to the back. That's the whole point. Simultaneity is relative. > > > > > > Dear Ken, > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > Ken Seto I should say that the locations of the ends of the train wrt M after the lightning strikes is irrelevant. Ken Seto > > So if you want to say that x1 = x2, you are saying that the length of > > the train w.r.t. the track is ZERO. In other words, the train is a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Nov 25, 8:47 am, kenshito <kens...@erinet.com> wrote: > > NO, NO, NO....x1 and x2 are points in space where the strikes occur > > simultaneously and these points are at equal distance from the M and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ken Shito 80 years approaching, Ke Shito Window of opportunity to lear relativity is closing, old fart > > > > > > > Dear Ken, > [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Since it would be cruel of me to tease an old man further, I consider this conversation closed. Uncle Ben kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message b2924e9e-19bb-4351-a1a3-fa21040a2283@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com >>>> Dear Ken, >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Event 2 arrive at M': > t'2 = -vx2/c^2 You forgot the gamma factors. Make that t'1 = - gamma v x1 / c^2 t'2 = - gamma v x2 / c^2 > Since x1 = x2 therefore the light fronts from events 1 and 2 will > arrive at M simultaneously. Remember that x1 and x2 and coordinates, not distances. So make that x1 = -x2 and you get t'1 = - gamma v x1 / c^2 t'2 = - gamma v x2 / c^2 and thus t'1 = - gamma v x1 / c^2 t'2 = + gamma v x1 / c^2 meaning that t'1 = - t'2 meaning that 1 and 2 will *not* arrive at M simultaneously, but, assuming that x1 > 0 (on the right, so to speak) and thus x2 < 0 (on the left), then 1 arrives first (before t' = 0), and 2 arrives later (after t' = 0). A transformation transforms coordinates. Not distances. Dirk Vdm Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote in message ZN_Wk.5$fQ4.3@newsfe12.ams2 > kenseto <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message > b2924e9e-19bb-4351-a1a3-fa21040a2283@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > (on the left), then 1 arrives first (before t' = 0), and 2 arrives later > (after t' = 0). Correction, make that: ... meaning that t'1 = - t'2 meaning that the flashes 1 and 2 did not *happen* simultaneously, but, assuming that x1 > 0 (on the right, so to speak) and thus x2 < 0 (on the left), then 1 *happened* first (before t' = 0), and 2 *happened* (after t' = 0). Obviously the flashes ARRIVE at M' simultanously, since M and M' coincide. In this event x = x' = t = t' = 0 Dirk Vdm > A transformation transforms coordinates. Not distances. > > Dirk Vdm Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote in message 3T_Wk.6$fQ4.4@newsfe12.ams2 > Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote in message > ZN_Wk.5$fQ4.3@newsfe12.ams2 [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > Obviously the flashes ARRIVE at M' simultanously, since M > and M' coincide. In this event x = x' = t = t' = 0 Ha, and there's a bit more to be corrected. See if you can find it, Ken. Hints: - Start with specifying what t1, x1, t2, x2, actually mean. - If the light reaches M at t1 = t2 = 0, then the light strikes happened at x1 = -x2 then t1 = ? t2 = ? - How do the coordinates translate then? Dirk Vdm On Nov 25, 5:20 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: > Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote in message > ZN_Wk.5$fQ...@newsfe12.ams2 [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > t'1 = - t'2 > meaning that the flashes 1 and 2 did not *happen* simultaneously, No....meaning that the arrival time for the light front from the positive x-axis is equal to the arrival time for the light front from the minus x-axis direction. That's why the speed of light in the M' frame is isotropic. > but, assuming that x1 > 0 (on the right, so to speak) and thus x2 < 0 > (on the left), then 1 *happened* first (before t' = 0), and 2 > *happened* (after t' = 0). No these bogus assertions assume that closing speed will affect the length of x1 and x2 (the length light need to travel to reach M'). It does not. Besides if it does the speed of light in the M' frame is not isotropic. Ken Seto > Obviously the flashes ARRIVE at M' simultanously, since M > and M' coincide. In this event x = x' = t = t' = 0 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Nov 25, 5:15 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: > kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > t'1 = - gamma v x1 / c^2 > t'2 = - gamma v x2 / c^2 Yes I did forgot the gamma factor. > > Since x1 = x2 therefore the light fronts from events 1 and 2 will > > arrive at M simultaneously. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > meaning that > t'1 = - t'2 Right....This means that the transit time for the arrival of the light fronts from the strikes is the same in both the -x direction and the +x direction and thus the light fronts arrival at M' simultaneously. >Meaning that 1 and 2 will *not* arrive at M simultaneously, Why? The same transit time for both directions. >but, > assuming that x1 > 0 (on the right, so to speak) and thus x2 < 0 > (on the left), then 1 arrives first (before t' = 0), and 2 arrives later > (after t' = 0). This is a bogus assumption....x1 always equal to x2 (because the speed of light is isotropic). Once the flashes occurred simultaneously the motion of the ends of the train has no effect on how the light fronts will propagate in the M and M' frames. BTW that's why the speed of light is isotropic and independent of the motion of the source. Ken Seto > A transformation transforms coordinates. Not distances. > > Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > On Nov 25, 5:15 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" > [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > > - Show quoted text - M <- -x -------x1----------------0++++++++++++++++x2+++++++++ +x - M' tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt (train) Can you see that x1 = -x2? Uncle Ben > > On Nov 25, 5:15 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" > [quoted text clipped - 111 lines] > > - Show quoted text - And with regard to the times, if t'1 >0 and t'2 <0, it means that t'2 occurred before t'=0 and t'1 occurred after t'=0. These are coordinates, not transit times. Uncle Ben > > > On Nov 25, 5:15 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" > [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > occurred before t'=0 and t'1 occurred after t'=0. These are > coordinates, not transit times. There is no t'1 and t'2. There is t'. Why? Because once the flashes happened at the ends of the train the location of the ends become irrelevant. The only important thing is the transit time of the light fronts from the original points of the flashes (+x and -x) to arrive at M'. Ken Seto > Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > > > > On Nov 25, 5:15 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" > [quoted text clipped - 131 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I thought you had already shown the equations for t'1 and t'2 and had shown that they differed in proportion to (x2-x1). Now that you know that x1 and x2 are different, that shows that the starting times of the light flashes from the back and from the front are now not simulotaneous. You proved it yourself! Uncle Ben > > > > > On Nov 25, 5:15 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" > [quoted text clipped - 137 lines] > the light flashes from the back and from the front are now not > simulotaneous. I thought t'1 and t'2 were the transit times from +x and -x locations. I didn't know that they represent the transit times from the locations of the ends of the train after the lightning happened simultaneously. Your problem is that you can't comprehend that the locations of the ends of the train got nothing to do with how light propagates from the points of strikes at +x and -x locations. Ken Seto > You proved it yourself! > > Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - On Nov 26, 10:49 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote: > On Nov 26, 9:29 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 169 lines] > the light flashes from the back and from the front are now not > simulotaneous. : I thought t'1 and t'2 were the transit times from +x and -x locations. Wrong again: points in space-time are indicated by (x, t) and (x', t'). Thus the t' are NOT "transit times from locations" (= time intervals) but moments in time (in this case: the point in time of each strike). Success! Harald > On Nov 26, 10:49 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 177 lines] > Thus the t' are NOT "transit times from locations" (= time intervals) but > moments in time (in this case: the point in time of each strike). Sigh....at the moment M and M' are coincide with each other t' = t =0. At the x location in the M frame what is t' if it is not the transit time for light to arrive at M'. In case you are too stupid to understand: t' is the point in time of each strike but it has the same value as the transit time for light to travel from x' to M'. Ken Seto > Success! > Harald- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > > On Nov 25, 5:15 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" > [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > > Can you see that x1 = -x2? Sigh.....+x =1/2 length of the contracted length of the train from M and -x=1/2 of the contracted length of the train from M. Once the flashes happened simultaneously at the ends of the train the motion of the ends of the train becomes irrelevant. This means that there is no x1 and x2 in so far as light is concerned. The arrival time for the light fronts to arrive at M is +x/c and -x/c. These time is transformed into the train frame as follows: +t'=gamma[v(+x)/c^2] -t'=gamma[v(-x)/c^2] This means that both light fronts will arrive at M' simultaneously. Ken Seto > Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > > > On Nov 25, 5:15 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" > [quoted text clipped - 129 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I give up! Uncle Ben > > > > On Nov 25, 5:15 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" > [quoted text clipped - 131 lines] > > I give up! Does this mean that you are out of valid arguement? :-) Ken Seto > Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > On Nov 25, 5:15 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" > [quoted text clipped - 143 lines] > > - Show quoted text - No. It means that there is no hope for you. I have explained the same thing to you 147 times, and still you don't get it. Uncle Ben > > > > Dear Ken, > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > train > Event 2 t'2 = gamma(t2 - vx2/c*c) Lorentz Transformation, track -> train Oh dear, that's what I was afraid of. Ken, what do you think an event is? So far, you do not know the meaning of the terms: vector component velocity vector relative velocity absolute velocity reference frame inertial reference frame acceleration, and now... event. How on earth do you expect to understand anything about relativity if you've never asked the meaning of basic terms? > When M and M' coincide with each other t1 = t2 =0 > Therefore: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Dear Ken, > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Oh dear, that's what I was afraid of. > Ken, what do you think an event is? Hey f.cking idiot....I didn't write these. Uncle Ben did. You are so f.cking stupid. Ken Seto > So far, you do not know the meaning of the terms: > vector component [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Dear Ken, > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Hey f.cking idiot....I didn't write these. Uncle Ben did. You are so > f.cking stupid. Ken, you wrote the equations above and labeled them Event 1 and Event 2. Has your mental slide progressed so far that you don't know what you've written? > Ken Seto > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - Uncle Ben <ben@greenba.com> wrote in message 122c1e10-6d5a-45ba-9a43-a3731ad39d0a@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com > Dear Ken, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Uncle Ben You should have known in front where this would bring you. Ask him what the variables represent in the transformation. The imbecile doesn't even know what an event is :-) Dirk Vdm On Nov 25, 3:24 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: > Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I'm treating sci.physics.relativity like a freak show. It is fascinating how the mind of man can go wrong. Uncle Ben Uncle Ben <ben@greenba.com> wrote in message caf3f0ec-2ad7-4287-a292-88fa158a8d8d@3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com > On Nov 25, 3:24 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > I'm treating sci.physics.relativity like a freak show. It is > fascinating how the mind of man can go wrong. Oh, yes - a true AVIP playground. Dirk Vdm > On Nov 25, 3:24 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Uncle Ben Such superiority! Why don't you include your orthodox selves in your fascination? Consider the way you have to wriggle about in order to paper over the impossibility of giving a really convincing answer to the Andromeda paradox, for example! It is far better to be in a 'freak show' than to be trapped in a peer reviewed environment in which one has to be terrified to ever suggest anything that might be considered questionable. Ken considers any idea like frame rotations as 'bogus' and so considers any implication that the lightning strikes are not either absolutely simultaneous or absolutely non-simultaneous as 'bogus'. There is nothing 'freaky' about such a position. It means he has to avoid transferring the nonsimultaneity visible in the track frame to the train frame, as you do, which implies a difference between the light in the track frame and the light in the train frame, which you do not allow. Alen > > On Nov 25, 3:24 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > - Show quoted text - What do you find paradoxical about the Andromeda phenomenon? On Nov 25, 10:08 pm, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote: snip > which implies a difference between the light in the > track frame and the light in the train frame, which > you do not allow. If there is a dog in my yard, and if both my wife and I take pictures of the dog, my pictures are shown from one angle and hers from another. But it's still the same dog. When are you going to grasp this simple concept? Uncle Ben > On Nov 25, 10:08 pm, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Uncle Ben If there is only one dog, there is no problem. What you don't realise, however, is that there were really two dogs, and you wife actually took a picture of the second dog, while you think she took a different picture of the same dog. So there is really not such a simple concept to grasp after all. Alen > > On Nov 25, 10:08 pm, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - Show quoted text - If you wont be serious, why should I bother responding? The dog story relates to your idea that different things belong in different frames. Frames are just a way to put coordinates onto events. Frames don't own things. Uncle Ben Uncle Ben <ben@greenba.com> wrote in message 6d8d9f7b-daac-4030-b61e-185bcaa55006@d23g2000yqc.googlegroups.com >>> On Nov 25, 10:08 pm, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > different frames. Frames are just a way to put coordinates onto > events. Frames don't own things. I decided not to respond anymore. He didn't respond to my last request and I don't have the time to ram it up his ... thing. He won't understand anyway. He will die stupid. Dirk Vdm On Nov 26, 11:41 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: > Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Smart! Cheers! Ben Uncle Ben <ben@greenba.com> wrote in message 6734e24f-50ef-47d7-8284-936505f20313@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com > On Nov 26, 11:41 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Ben Well, apparently I changed my mind. Not so smart after all :-) Dirk Vdm On Nov 27, 3:41 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: > Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Dirk Vdm It is your mistake to think I don't understand. I understand Minkowski spacetime perfectly well, but I dispute that it describes the physical reality. It is a matter of disputation rather than a failure to understand, but you lot don't seem to be able to credit that anyone who understands Minkowski spactime could possibly be less than enthralled by it, never mind actually doubt it. Alen > It is your mistake to think I don't understand. > I understand Minkowski spacetime perfectly well, > but I dispute that it describes the physical reality. All the evidence we see is on the other side. Alen, you regularly demonstrate lack of understanding of Minkowski spacetime, and when asked for a single case where you used its mathematics to compute something, all you had were excuses. Constantly bleating that you do understand it accomplishes nothing. > It is a matter of disputation rather than a failure > to understand, but you lot don't seem to be able > to credit that anyone who understands Minkowski > spactime could possibly be less than enthralled > by it, never mind actually doubt it. There is no credit for work not done.  Signature--Bryan > > > On Nov 25, 10:08 pm, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Uncle Ben Why do you suppose I am not serious? My answer was perfectly serious. It is always assumed that there is only one spacetime event (one dog), and the LT merely specify different coordinates (different pictures) of the event in different frames. In my version of SR there are two events (two dogs) and the LT relate the coordinates of two different events (two pictures of two different dogs), and not different coordinates of one spacetime event. The mathematics itself doesn't specify whether or not it is referring to one event or two, since it merely relates two sets of coordinate values. It is merely ASSUMED, theoretically, that there is only one spacetime event. But, in SR as a theory of light, the light is not single, and creates two distinct events in the two frames, despite your contention that frames are just arbitrary reference bases, created by humans, and not by nature. If you like, you can consider that I am saying that the light itself creates its own internal version of distinct reference frames, based on the relative motion, which is a physical reality. Why, therefore, do you suppose I am not serious? Alen > > > > On Nov 25, 10:08 pm, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Because I was talking about a hypothetical problem which specified one dog. Let's drop it. Publish your theory, and let's what will happen to it. If you get a Nobel Prize, I'll read about it. Uncle Ben > Let's drop it. Publish your theory, and let's what will happen to it. > If you get a Nobel Prize, I'll read about it. Alen's ideas are in the right place here on s.p.r. That's kind of what this group is for, and certainly not what serious physics journals are for. Signature--Bryan > It is far better to be in a 'freak show' than to be > trapped in a peer reviewed environment in which > one has to be terrified to ever suggest anything > that might be considered questionable. That's a remarkable statement. This means to me that you think it is better to be original and wrong, than to be unoriginal and right. That is perhaps true in purely speculative fields like art (which philosophy borders on), but it seems to be ill-considered in science. After all, a schizophrenic who has lost touch with reality is highly original and wrong. Furthermore, scientists tend to *thrive* on being questioned, rather than being terrified. It is the hammering through severe examination, a trial by fire, that produces the best work. This is the purpose of peer review and it is absolutely nothing to be terrified of. If you find this to be intimidating, then you are simply in the wrong field. > Ken considers any idea like frame rotations as > 'bogus' and so considers any implication that the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Alen [...] > Furthermore, scientists tend to *thrive* on being questioned, rather > than being terrified. It is the hammering through severe examination, > a trial by fire, that produces the best work. This is the purpose of > peer review and it is absolutely nothing to be terrified of. If you > find this to be intimidating, then you are simply in the wrong field. I would find it very hard to apply that view to the character of the usual kind of responses we get from orthodox supporters on this NG. I don't recall even one of them ever acknowledging that I dispute the validity of Minkowski spacetime as a description of the physical reality. It is always a case that I have not studied the theory properly, or don't grasp it, or whatever else. That I might be disputing it and suggesting an alternative appears to be out of the question as far as they are concerned. You either agree or must accept the status of crank and crackpot. That is my experience. Alen > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Alen A couple of comments - - What goes on in this newsgroup is in NO WAY representative of the process of critical review that occurs in professional physics. This newsgroup is NOT a microcosm of physics, nor is it intended to be. - It is certainly important for someone that introduces a new idea to demonstrate that he is completely familiar with the incumbent ideas. This in no way implies acceptance of the incumbent ideas. Moreover, familiarity with incumbent ideas in no way hinders the development of new ideas. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.