The Theory of Relativity will begin to fall apart in 2016/2017 - Part III

[Robin]

Originally Posted by SDG

What is the clear exposition? His understanding of what is happening is lacking.

I have to call it as it is. He made no correction to what I said so far.

SDG

Referring to his post #349, at what point, in your opinion, does he go wrong?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Robin

I might be missing something, I admit, this is not my subject.

Can you clarify what events A, B and C represent on you diagrams?

The diagrams seem to relate to you previous example and not to the one about the rod on the platform.

The start: #233, #234, #235, #238.
Then #250, #281.
The post #281 shows SR problem.
When you check my posts then we can discuss #349.
SDG

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by SDG

It has to be one to one relationship!

There's a one to one relationship between (t, x) in one frame and (t', x') in another.

(Note that that's in the simplest case where v is aligned with the x axis. With an arbitrary v vector the one to one relationship involves all four coordinates.)

That's why we can consistently transform between events in different frames. Events have a specific time and a specific position in each frame.

There cannot be a one to one relationship between t and t' alone in two different inertial reference frames because that relationship, as the Lorentz transformation equation clearly shows, depends on the x coordinate.

Transforming between different inertial reference frames is analogous to rotating the coordinate axes of an xy plane. There is no one to one relationship between x coordinates before the rotation and x' coordinates afterward, because a rotation displaces some x into y and some y into x. The one to one relationship is between coordinate pairs (x, y) and (x', y').

That's what Special Relativity is all about. Time and space are not independent. Velocity in space transforms the position and time coordinates in a hyperbolic rotation. You cannot know what time it is (relative to some event) unless you know where you are and how fast you're moving.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by SDG

When you check my posts then we can discuss #349.
SDG

Is there some reason you can't just confirm that the space time diagrams don't relate to the example with the rod on the platform?

Or to clarify what events A and B are?

I am asking because I have been through all that stuff and these are the questions that arise from this?

Where is the world line for the end of the rod, for example?

[Robin]

So, if, from the frame of the train, a light at the front of the train flashes as soon as the light is seen to reach the end of the rod, would that event transform correctly back to the frame of the platform?

(Edit say the light flashed at a point on the train that lined up with the end of the rod)

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by SDG

What is the clear exposition? His understanding of what is happening is lacking.
I have to call it as it is. He made no correction to what I said so far.
SDG

Dude, are you a flat earther? I'm starting to get that vibe.

[Bjarne]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

So you predict it will not accelerate as it approaches the Sun and decelerate when it moves away from the Sun?

Hans

I told you what was unexpected.
Acceleration towards the Sun is not unexpected.

Edited by kmortis:

Removed to comply with Rule 12/0

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

I told you what was unexpected.
Acceleration towards the Sun is not unexpected.

Edited by kmortis:

Removed to comply with Rule 12/0

The ol' unexpected expected acceleration trick! It's the second time this week I've fallen for it!

[Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

For example, the current velocity of C/2019 Q4 (Borisov) will increase as it gets to closer to the Sun and then decrease as it travels out of the Solar System. Where is the calculation of that?

Edited by kmortis:

Removed to comply with Rule 0

After reaching "perihelion" (max speed) when no further acceleration is supportet by the force of the Sun, , the asteroide or comet, or whatever it is, will decelerate unexpected relative to that speed it have achieved.. I give a damn in calculating the perihelion speed, try to ask here , - how to get things out of peoples ears, - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete

[Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

The ol' unexpected expected acceleration trick! It's the second time this week I've fallen for it!

If the perihelion speed is 71 km/s or 79 km/s - what difference does it make ?, - The point is rather concrete is concrete. Some people have it in their head.

[Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes

More things that Bjarne doesn't understand. And if we can't measure it, why even bring it up.

60 seconds * 60 minutes * 24 hours * 30 days * 3 months * 0.000000008 m/s = 0.62208m (or just a little over 2 feet)

0.000000008 m/s² - Happy now ?

- and that was based on lazy 40 km/s, and if moving straight towards DFA

Yes you just calculated the max deceleration speed.
The point is that if the less distance, the object have reached, - as a result of that deceleration, - (after 3 month) = 192 km or 291 really doesn't matter , - still concrete is concrete down on Earth.


The only thing that should surprise me is if RR must be calculated based on a an absolute (DFA) (etc) speed-frame, then that acceleration is much larger.
Data from Oumuamua could suggest that…

Notice that mysterious objects, claimed to have origin from other solar system, is really a brain-dead idea.
Those who have understood the MTR theory would very easy understand that such objects ONLY can come from a northern direction.
Simply because of these object follows very strange and elongated orbits due to the influence of DFA and EDFA
The red thread is nothing can escape DFA

Even C/2019 Q4 will ORBIT the Sun.
In the year 2031 this is what all kindergarten student will learn after 17 minuts and 14 +/- 3½ seconds in the first astro lesson.

http://pubs.sciepub.com/FAAC/4/1/4/index.html

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Myriad

There's a one to one relationship between (t, x) in one frame and (t', x') in another.

(Note that that's in the simplest case where v is aligned with the x axis. With an arbitrary v vector the one to one relationship involves all four coordinates.)

That's why we can consistently transform between events in different frames. Events have a specific time and a specific position in each frame.

There cannot be a one to one relationship between t and t' alone in two different inertial reference frames because that relationship, as the Lorentz transformation equation clearly shows, depends on the x coordinate.

Transforming between different inertial reference frames is analogous to rotating the coordinate axes of an xy plane. There is no one to one relationship between x coordinates before the rotation and x' coordinates afterward, because a rotation displaces some x into y and some y into x. The one to one relationship is between coordinate pairs (x, y) and (x', y').

That's what Special Relativity is all about. Time and space are not independent. Velocity in space transforms the position and time coordinates in a hyperbolic rotation. You cannot know what time it is (relative to some event) unless you know where you are and how fast you're moving.

It makes sense that gamma can't be enough information for a transform between frames. It has the velocity squared, which removes the direction from the velocity.

[Robin]

Speaking as a beginner with SR, the Lorentz transform seems to clearly imply that events being simultaneous in one frame does not imply that they will be simultaneous in another. Am I right?

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Robin

Speaking as a beginner with SR, the Lorentz transform seems to clearly imply that events being simultaneous in one frame does not imply that they will be simultaneous in another. Am I right?

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relati...f_simultaneity

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Robin

Speaking as a beginner with SR, the Lorentz transform seems to clearly imply that events being simultaneous in one frame does not imply that they will be simultaneous in another. Am I right?

Right.

In fact, if they're simultaneous and have different x coordinates in one frame, they definitely will not be simultaneous in the other. (That's assuming the x axis is aligned with the direction of relative movement between the inertial frames, as in most train-vs.-platform thought experiments.)

And conversely, if they have different x coordinates and are not simultaneous in one frame, they might be in the other.

A basic example is the arrival, at the front and at the back of the train, of the light pulse that originated at the center of the train. In the train frame, those two events are simultaneous, but in the platform frame they are not.

[halleyscomet]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

Notice that mysterious objects, claimed to have origin from other solar system, is really a brain-dead idea.
Those who have understood the MTR theory would very easy understand that such objects ONLY can come from a northern direction.

That's right folks, Bjarne thinks there's a "North" and "South" in space and insults people who disagree with him as promoting a "brain-dead" idea.

Bjarne, is there also an East and West in space? What happens if I start at the North Pole and go North by Northwest in a rocket? Where will I end up?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by halleyscomet

That's right folks, Bjarne thinks there's a "North" and "South" in space and insults people who disagree with him as promoting a "brain-dead" idea.

Bjarne, is there also an East and West in space? What happens if I start at the North Pole and go North by Northwest in a rocket? Where will I end up?

To be fair, there is a convention of calling one direction, perpendicular to the Solar System ekliptika, "north", and the opposite direction "south".

However, there is no "east" or "west".

Hans

[halleyscomet]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

To be fair, there is a convention of calling one direction, perpendicular to the Solar System ekliptika, "north", and the opposite direction "south".

However, there is no "east" or "west".

Hans

Regardless, Bjarne is still asserting that objects MUST come from the "North." He's made a lot of statements over the years about what "Must" happen in relation to these cardinal directions, and he seems to think they're a cosmic absolute more than a convention. It all relates back to his dark flow claims that are supposed to shatter Relativity.

Here is one of his more coherent claims about the importance of "North" and "South" in relation to his "Dark Flow:"

Quote:

Galaxies following the inclination of orbits predominantly perpendicular relative to DFA will expand due to the centrifugal force.
An object (for example spacecraft Q) moving (north) opposite DFD is affected by a relatively weaker RR than Earth and is consequently affected by larger effective acceleration towards the DFD (due to DFA). On the one hand, the Effective Dark Flow Acceleration (EDFA) will increase, but on the other hand, RRPKE will equalise the influence.

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by halleyscomet

Regardless, Bjarne is still asserting that objects MUST come from the "North." He's made a lot of statements over the years about what "Must" happen in relation to these cardinal directions, and he seems to think they're a cosmic absolute more than a convention. It all relates back to his dark flow claims that are supposed to shatter Relativity.

Look who's laughing now?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=338861

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=338955

Coinkydink? Or all part of the plan ..?

[halleyscomet]

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

Look who's laughing now?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=338861

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=338955

Coinkydink? Or all part of the plan ..?

You make a good point, but how does THIS fit into it all?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Bjarne]

Originally Posted by halleyscomet

That's right folks, Bjarne thinks there's a "North" and "South" in space and insults people who disagree with him as promoting a "brain-dead" idea.

Bjarne, is there also an East and West in space? What happens if I start at the North Pole and go North by Northwest in a rocket? Where will I end up?

North relative to ecliptic, you would have know if you had read 0,0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002 % of the theory

[Bjarne]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

To be fair, there is a convention of calling one direction, perpendicular to the Solar System ekliptika, "north", and the opposite direction "south".

However, there is no "east" or "west".

Hans

East and west can be instant directions, the Sun is rising in east, - this also the very first kindergarten lesson, and take these student 0,000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000012424 second to understand.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by SDG

The post #281 shows SR problem.

20 September 2019 SDG: A "post #281 shows SR problem'" fantasy - your ignorance or imagination is not a problem for SR!

Continuing to waste our time with your fairly vague, often just wrong diagrams does not show any problems with SR. Persisting in not learning about SR is your problem. You need to produce a clear valid diagram showing a real problem with SR. Or learn about SR and state the problem clearly in English.

1. 30 August 2019 SDG: Note the absence of clocks in the thought experiments for relativity of simultaneity.
2. 5 September 2019 SDG: Does not understand that Einstein is applying "the principle of constancy of the speed of light" in his 1905 paper.
3. 5 September 2019 SDG: Three rather incoherent posts on a bad "thought experiment" with invalid physics
4. 5 September 2019 SDG: An ignorant "Where is time dilation in all of this" question (he has no clocks!).
5. 5 September 2019 SDG: Ignores the content of Pixel42's post about Myriad's post stating the second postulate of SR as confirmed by 114 years of experiments!
6. 16 September 2018 SDG: SR needs a "hierarchy between the frames" delusion.
7. 17 September 2019 SDG: An ignorant question because SR time dilation is really reciprocal.
8. 18 September 2019 SDG: Time on the platform does not represents 2 times on the train.
9. 18 September 2019 SDG: Abysmal ignorance about SR( Lorentz transformation and inertial frames).

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

..asteroide or comet, or whatever it is.

20 September 2019 Bjarne: Persists with delusions, e.g. not knowing what comet C/2019 Q4 (Borisov) is!

A delusion that he can calculate a deceleration when he has no idea about the trajectory of C/2019 Q4 (Borisov).

A delusion that a "deceleration is 0.000000008 m/s" pulled out of thin air is a deceleration (it is a speed). Fixed in later post so we are left with a delusion that a number pulled out of air and that not be measurable is a prediction. A prediction in science includes that workings are shown (they do not appear by magic!) and that they can be tested.

A delusion that he calculated the perihelion speed - see above. That would need the use of orbital mechanics on the trajectory of comet C/2019 Q4 (Borisov) and he is ignorant of both.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

0.000000008 m/s² - Happy now ?
...

20 September 2019 Bjarne: Gibberish and lies about data from 'Oumuamua, etc.

He did not do anything with any data from 'Oumuamua. He had a delusion that his fantasies were supported by non-gravitational acceleration of 'Oumuamua.

A lie that 'Oumuamua and C/2019 Q4 (Borisov) did not come from outside of the Solar System.

A delusion about extra-Solar system objects only coming form a "northern direction". Deluded lie of "very strange and elongated orbits" when he has no such orbits.

A blatant "C/2019 Q4 will ORBIT the Sun" lie . This is C/2019 Q4 (Borisov) as given to him several times.

Quote:

C/2019 Q4 (Borisov) (internal name gb00234) is an interstellar comet, which will pass through the ecliptic in December 2019. It has a heliocentric orbital eccentricity of ≈3 and is not bound to the Sun.[1][6][7][8] The comet is the second observed interstellar interloper after ʻOumuamua.[9]
...
It will leave the Solar System in the direction of Telescopium.[12]

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

...In the year 2031 this is what all kindergarten student will learn after 17 minuts and 14 +/- 3½ seconds in the first astro lesson.

20 September 2019 Bjarne: Utter gibberish about 2031 when he predicted "2016/2017" for SR falling apart and it has not happened yet !
The real gibberish is that any kindergarten student will ever learn about his obviously delusions. They do not even learn about real astronomy which is at least a high school level subject!

Links to his "Modified Theory of Relativity (MTR)" paper in a dubious journal. The title is a lie because delusions do not modify relativity. A delusion that debated dark flow billions of light years away affects the Solar System. A delusion that there is am magical resistance to motion:
11 January 2019 Bjarne: An insane statement that no deceleration will happen at LHC, etc. according to his delusions!
A "theory of relativity will be tested on board the ISS and Galileo 5 & 6" in 2019/2020 will support his idiocy delusion (he has no prediction and remains ignorant about the actual tests).

The Galileo 5 & 6 test of GR (not SR) has been done and verified GR: Galileo satellites prove Einstein's Relativity Theory to highest accuracy yet
Atomic Clock Ensemble in Space will test GR. Launch expected in 2020, data collection for the next 18-30 months, data available maybe from mid 2021.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Robin

Originally Posted by Myriad

There's a one to one relationship between (t, x) in one frame and (t', x') in another.

(Note that that's in the simplest case where v is aligned with the x axis. With an arbitrary v vector the one to one relationship involves all four coordinates.)

That's why we can consistently transform between events in different frames. Events have a specific time and a specific position in each frame.

There cannot be a one to one relationship between t and t' alone in two different inertial reference frames because that relationship, as the Lorentz transformation equation clearly shows, depends on the x coordinate.

Transforming between different inertial reference frames is analogous to rotating the coordinate axes of an xy plane. There is no one to one relationship between x coordinates before the rotation and x' coordinates afterward, because a rotation displaces some x into y and some y into x. The one to one relationship is between coordinate pairs (x, y) and (x', y').

That's what Special Relativity is all about. Time and space are not independent. Velocity in space transforms the position and time coordinates in a hyperbolic rotation. You cannot know what time it is (relative to some event) unless you know where you are and how fast you're moving.

It makes sense that gamma can't be enough information for a transform between frames. It has the velocity squared, which removes the direction from the velocity.

This is an answer to both posts.
The time component of LT gives us values on the clock at specific x' location.
When we do time interval along a world line we need to do delta between two points along that specific world line, ... and because we are following x'=0 word line from t'=0 (our lower end of interval is 0, we are subtracting 0) so we are left with just time component of LT that represents time dilation.
We know where we are and how fast we are moving.
The transformation is done along x=0 and x'=0 world lines.

Look at this text book:



The platform x position between the emission and reception is different.
Still based on the simultaneity it 'apparently' does not affect the world line time interval along the x'=0 world line of the train car therefore this is time dilation.
The equation 2.2 is essentially time component of LT where x'=0.

I wrote 'apparently' because there is a big problem, I'll address it in coming days.
SDG

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Robin

Speaking as a beginner with SR, the Lorentz transform seems to clearly imply that events being simultaneous in one frame does not imply that they will be simultaneous in another. Am I right?

Right, and I am saying this is one part of the contradiction.
SDG

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Right.

In fact, if they're simultaneous and have different x coordinates in one frame, they definitely will not be simultaneous in the other. (That's assuming the x axis is aligned with the direction of relative movement between the inertial frames, as in most train-vs.-platform thought experiments.)

And conversely, if they have different x coordinates and are not simultaneous in one frame, they might be in the other.

A basic example is the arrival, at the front and at the back of the train, of the light pulse that originated at the center of the train. In the train frame, those two events are simultaneous, but in the platform frame they are not.

Yes, and I showed calculations how relativity still claims constant c in this examples.
There is some beauty in SR
SDG

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by SDG

Right, and I am saying this is one part of the contradiction.

20 September 2019 : SDG: A "one part of the contradiction" lie when he knows that there is no problem with any "contradiction".
Relativity of simultaneity is textbook SR.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by SDG

Look at this text book:

20 September 2019 SDG: "Look at this text book" evidence of denying textbook physics
That is a textbook page on Einstein's thought experiments which includes the one that shows relativity of simultaneity! Looks like SDG has a SR textbook but still sticks with a fantasy that SR is wrong.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by SDG

Yes, and I showed calculations how relativity still claims constant c in this examples.

20 September 2019 SDG: Persistent ignorance of SR where constant c is a postulate?

We have known for 114 years that "relativity still claims constant c" ! We have 114 years of experimental evidence that this is correct starting with indirect evidence that SR works.

[Elagabalus]

I noticed that you did not answer my question.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by SDG

Right, and I am saying this is one part of the contradiction.

SDG

I don't see any contradiction.

In fact it would be a contradiction if events that were simultaneous in one frame were always simultaneous in other frames and the speed of light was constant.

Could you be specific about what contradicts what?

[Robin]

Originally Posted by SDG

]
The transformation is done along x=0 and x'=0 world lines.

Still based on the simultaneity it 'apparently' does not affect the world line time interval along the x'=0 world line of the train car therefore this is time dilation.
The equation 2.2 is essentially time component of LT where x'=0.

So, in effect, you have added two events, the first in the platform frame:, "Something happens at the start of the rod at the same time as the light reaches the end of the rod" and the second event in the train frame "Something happens in the middle of the train at the same time as the light reaches the end of the rod. Then you are doing a Lorentz transform on the first event and using that time as the time for the second event and doing a second transform. Naturally neither of these transforms will have the x term. Is that a fair description of your calculation?

[Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

20 September 2019 SDG: A "post #281 shows SR problem'" fantasy - your ignorance or imagination is not a problem for SR!

Continuing to waste our time with your fairly vague, often just wrong diagrams does not show any problems with SR. Persisting in not learning about SR is your problem. You need to produce a clear valid diagram showing a real problem with SR. Or learn about SR and state the problem clearly in English.

1. 30 August 2019 SDG: Note the absence of clocks in the thought experiments for relativity of simultaneity.
2. 5 September 2019 SDG: Does not understand that Einstein is applying "the principle of constancy of the speed of light" in his 1905 paper.
3. 5 September 2019 SDG: Three rather incoherent posts on a bad "thought experiment" with invalid physics
4. 5 September 2019 SDG: An ignorant "Where is time dilation in all of this" question (he has no clocks!).
5. 5 September 2019 SDG: Ignores the content of Pixel42's post about Myriad's post stating the second postulate of SR as confirmed by 114 years of experiments!
6. 16 September 2018 SDG: SR needs a "hierarchy between the frames" delusion.
7. 17 September 2019 SDG: An ignorant question because SR time dilation is really reciprocal.
8. 18 September 2019 SDG: Time on the platform does not represents 2 times on the train.
9. 18 September 2019 SDG: Abysmal ignorance about SR( Lorentz transformation and inertial frames).

SR is one big load of BS braindeath brainwashed arrogant propaganda, not worth to spend a second.

The truth behind SR and GR is a process we never really understood at all.

The total amount energy, which mean :

1. the nuclear binding energy (mass), - as well as
2. true kinetic energy and
3. gravitational position energy

are all factors responsible for transforming realities.

The length of the ruler, (local distances) and time (our reality as a whole) are both results of a process that depend of the total true energy level, - and hence either contracting or expanding reality (locally) proportional with the change of the local total energy level .

The common denominator for this process is the elastic structure of space.
Elastic space is an integrated and intensive part of this process.

This is what the Lorentz transformation is about….

Give a damn of kindergarten brainwashed train bla bla bla bla..
The Lorentz transformation was known before the theory of relativity.
The theory of relativity only tried to explain these transformations, - but did not completely succeed. A modification is necessary.

http://pubs.sciepub.com/FAAC/4/1/4/index.html

[halleyscomet]

Originally Posted by Bjarne

East and west can be instant directions, the Sun is rising in east, - this also the very first kindergarten lesson, and take these student 0,000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000012424 second to understand.

Your response does nothing to counter my point. You’re still asserting interstellar objects need to come from a particular direction. You’re still claiming that our solar system has cosmic significance and objects from deep space have to approach our solar system from a particular direction.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by SDG

The transformation is done along x=0 and x'=0 world lines.

Which doesn't make sense because a transform on x=0 will not map to x'=0 unless t=0 or v=0.

So you if you do a transform from the platform frame to the train frame at x=0, you can't then do a transform from the train frame back to the platform frame with x=0 and claim that it should be mapping back to the original time.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by SDG

This is an answer to both posts.
The time component of LT gives us values on the clock at specific x' location.
When we do time interval along a world line we need to do delta between two points along that specific world line, ... and because we are following x'=0 word line from t'=0 (our lower end of interval is 0, we are subtracting 0) so we are left with just time component of LT that represents time dilation.
We know where we are and how fast we are moving.
The transformation is done along x=0 and x'=0 world lines.

Look at this text book:

https://i.imgur.com/fb9LCXN.png

The platform x position between the emission and reception is different.
Still based on the simultaneity it 'apparently' does not affect the world line time interval along the x'=0 world line of the train car therefore this is time dilation.
The equation 2.2 is essentially time component of LT where x'=0.

I wrote 'apparently' because there is a big problem, I'll address it in coming days.
SDG

You haven't defined any events on the x=0 or x'=0 world lines, except for the initial light flash at t=t'=0.

Claims about the timing of events that you haven't defined cannot be evaluated. You are trying to take advantage of your own lack of clarity to give you wiggle room to claim a contradiction where there is none.

The thought experiment you pasted from a textbook defines its relevant events (the emission of the light pulse at the near side of the carriage, the arrival/reflection of the light pulse at the far side of the carriage, and the detection of the light pulse at the near side of the carriage again). That specificity makes the ensuing calculations possible. Your thought experiment, so far, lacks that specificity.

My post #349 completely describes the physics of your thought experiment as you've presented it so far. If you want to do calculations concerning additional events on the x=0 or x'=0 world lines, then you need to define some additional events on the x=0 or x'=0 world lines.

[halleyscomet]

Originally Posted by SDG

This is an answer to both posts.

Please keep on keeping on. Your posts are stimulating a good deal of interesting discussion while pissing off Bjarne. For example:

Originally Posted by Bjarne

(Insults typical of an incel trimmed to spare moderators the effort later.)

Bless his heart, isn't he precious?