Education and Crank Claims: Special Relativity

This is true. However, I have not stated that a single Lorentz boost will only alter one spatial direction and that the x-axis is the preferred direction. I stated that in this three dimensional inertial frame in one axis is deformable while the other two axes are fixed/rigid without specifying (x, y, or z).

Also, this does not address why the initial conditions presented by RPenner describe one (1) of the three dimensional axis to be elastic/deformable, while forcing the other two (2) of the three dimensional axis to be fixed/rigid?

No, it did not address the question! What it revealed was another way of calculating the uniform motion of an inertial frame relative to another inertial frame with the assumption that one dimension of the motion is elastic/deformable, while the other two dimensions of the motion are fixed/rigid for the frame in motion.

That is math!

Do you understand physics??

Sure, why don't you place it on your new website: Cranks 'R' Us.com

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hey, pretty cool. May I somehow comment at that place? You failed for this reason.

It is a necessary condition after further propafation that x'1 < x'2 < 0, based on LT. That was proven in the paper andf I can prove that all day long.

Next, in the view of the primed frame, just the opposiite happens. The primed frame light postulate dermands x'2 < x'1 < 0.

Therefore, after further propagation, x'1 < x'2 < 0 if and only if x'2 < x'1 < 0, which is a contradiction.

Now, here is your actual task. You must prove for this example, that LT calculates x'2 < x'1 < 0 based on the unprimed frame data.

In other words, you can't claim it, you must prove it. Guess what, you can't.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LOL

This is the crankiest post I have ever seen.

http://nongeometric.wordpress.com/2011/10/02/refutation-of-vixra1109-0003/

This is pure crackpottery.

You did not prove x'2 < x'1 < 0 using LT based on the unprimed frame data.

Let's see your proof. It is simple, if you can directly prove this, then you are true, if you cannot you are false.

Here, let me give you a hint. Einstein designed the equations based on a homogeneous space.

Do you know what that means? That means when considering light, x1 < x2 iff x'1 < x'2.

I can prove all day long LT follows this principle.

For example, take the partial derivative and you will see dx'/dx > 0.

So, since x1 > x2 based on the light postulate in the unprimed frame with fixed y=10 and z=0 and space is homogeneous, then x'2 > x'1.

But, x'2 < 0 and x'1 < 0. Hence, x'1 < x'2 < 0. QED.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Magneto_1, you are not being answered by these so called "experts".

You have a legitimate question and it is decidable under SR.

I will wait until these so called "experts" fail to answer your question and then I will give you the proof under the postulates of SR.

 

Yes. Chinglu it is a legitimate question.

I can't wait!!:shrug:

 

I have been tring to figure out what the real question is for a while now.

The question keeps being framed as the deformation of one axis/direction while the other two remain fixed/ridged.

At first I could not get the whole deformed axis thing as the whole coordinate system is an arbitrary agreed upon system to talk about objects in space. The axis' never deform and are not themselves fixed in space even from a Newtonian view.

Now it seems that what you may be questioning is why "length" contraction occurs only along one axis?

From my point of view the question has never really been made clear, exactly what deformation are you referring to?

If it is length contraction, either as perceived from an external frame of reference or real as in resulting from an object's linear velocity, they are both limited to one direction in space because linear velocity is li tied to one direction in space. If the x axis of your coordinate system is in line with that linear velocity, it is the only one of the three axis' that can be affected by the perceived or real linear velocity associated with the motion.

The coordinate system, a coordinate system is defined from within the frame of reference that it, itself defines and is never observed from within that frame of reference to be deformed in any way.

Length contraction, if that is the deformation you are talking about, only involves the coordinate system in as much as the system is used to discuss it, the length contraction. As a result the mathematics involved in describing it, only involves length contraction or deformation in one direction. Which by convention and for simplicity of communication has generally been expressed on the x axis.

That is unless you are experiencing some form of visual impairment, as might be expected should you consume some varieties of mushrooms or non prescription drugs, popular in the late 60s and 70s.

Sometimes I think that some of these disputes are fueled by nothing more than a desire to be contrary. I have a hard time accepting that anyone who has any real knowledge in this area, is incapable of understanding the math that both rpenner and Alpha have been posting. But then maybe I am having some flashback of my own....

 

Well, I feel pretty good.

Neither AN, Rpenner have presented any arguments to support deformation.

Now, if they have, perhaps you can explain that.

As we know, you can't.

So, I wait and the mods continue to support these posters as experts, so it would seem these humans can prove why deformation in the standard configuration is only in the x direction.

I know why and can prove it.

But I am going to make these "experts" confess they do not know why.

 

Because he's giving an example. How are you not getting this?

It did answer the question, you just didn't understand.

It isn't assumed the y and z directions are left unaltered, it is derived. Rpenner didn't show it but I walked you through it. If you want a more explicit walk through read pages 5 and 6 here.

so(3,1) is spanned by antisymmetric 4x4 matrices, which is a 6 dimensional vector space. Since so(3,1) contains so(3)~su(2) 3 of those 6 generators will generate so(3), the rest will be the boosts, those are the \(K_{j}\) I've mentioned. Thus you consider, in full generality, a generator \(a_{j}K_{j}\) and construct the Lorentz transform \(\exp(ia_{j}K_{j})\). A boost in the x direction by speed v should map a vector (0,0,0) to (v,0,0). When you compute the \(a_{j}\) which cause \(\exp(ia_{j}K_{j})\) to have that effect you have constructed the Lorentz transform which boosts in the x direction. Then you can ask "Does this alter the y or z components?". The answer is no. Go on, do the calculations yourself.

Or you can see that a boost in the x direction should alter the x component only. If it altered the other components then it would be inducing a boost not parallel to the x direction. For example if it mapped the velocity vector (0,y,z) to anything other than (v,y,z) then it wouldn't be the required boost, as the boost would have components in the y and z directions. Pretty basic reasoning really.

Nice way of putting your foot in it. What I just outlined appears al over quantum field theory, general relativity and string theory. In general relativity you have the spin connection, which has support in the Lie algebra so(3,1) because that's how you couple spinors to curved space-time. The relationship between Lie algebra and Lie group is used in gauge theory. All gauge GROUPS have associated gauge ALGEBRAS. Gauge fields arise as connections for field covariant derivatives and they include Lie algebra generators. For example the \(A_{\mu}\) photon or gluon field is actually \(A_{\mu}^{a}T^{a}\), where \(T^{a}\) are generators of either u(1) (for photons) or su(3) (for gluons). The fact \([T^{a},T^{b}] \neq 0\) in su(3) is the reason gluons interact with one another but photons don't.

These topics are considered essential learning to anyone planning to do research in those areas. Like I said, would you like me to provide you some lecture notes which cover all of this stuff? Understanding so(3,1) and its subalgebras is useful for describing matter fields in general relativity. Understanding su(n) is important for gauge theory.

I'm sorry you don't realise how groups and algebras are everywhere in theoretical physics, including general relativity, beyond undergrad level but that isn't my fault.

 

Can you and Rpenner write a simple proof that all can understand to prove z and y do not deform?

Above, you do not have a proof.

So, if you really understand SR, then you can show a simple proof.

I can.

 

Demonstrated false in the pdf I wrote. You aren't actually retorting it, you're just repeating your assertions.

I put in the numbers for you. The location of the points can be done numerically and then you see that while x'1 < x'2 because x'1 < x'2 < 0 x'2 gets hit first by the light wave.

Relativity does not have to preserve the order of events are different locations. If you don't understand this tough, science moves on without you.

I didn't 'claim' anything, I went through the explicit algebra. If you think I'm wrong please point out exactly which line of algebra is wrong. You did this tactic before, where you just said "It's wrong" and then didn't say where. All you could do is just repeat "It's wrong". I want you to quote the line where I have made a mistake and demonstrate it to be a mistake. Anything else is worthless posturing.

Except I've just demonstrated, explicitly, that it isn't the case. As I said, if you claim

So, since x1 > x2 based on the light postulate in the unprimed frame with fixed y=10 and z=0 and space is homogeneous, then x'2 > x'1.

Which is not a contradiction. If x'1 < x'2 < 0 then 0 < t'2 < t'1, which is what happens.

Do the calculation entirely in the first frame. You get 0 < x'1 < x'2, so |x1|<|x2| so t1 < t2. Then map ALL the points to the new frame. You get x'1 < x'2 < 0 so |x'2|<|x'1| so t'2 < t'1. Completely consistent. I did the numbers for you in the pdf. If you disagree with them please quote the specific line and point out the error.

It's really very simple. For example 1 < 2 so 1 gets hit first. -2 < -1 but |-1| < |-2| so -1 gets hit first. The one closer to the origin gets hit first. That's what relativity says. That is what it should be.

You love using the word 'decidable' but you don't know what it means. You're like a parrot who knows only 3 phrases and just says them endlessly. "It's decidable", "That's wrong", "You provide no argument".

I have yet to see you do any mathematics. Magneto might be an ignorant dishonest hack but at least he tries to do some maths. He just fails utterly. You want people to believe you can do it without ever actually coming up with the goods.

Just because you and he don't understand about Lie groups and algebras, tangent spaces, inner products and Lorentz transforms doesn't mean the question hasn't been answered.

I could walk you through each step explicitly but Magneto's already shown he's unfamiliar with any of these concepts so it'd just be a waste of both our times.

You really do live in a delusional little world, don't you? How can I profess I don't know the answer to a question I've already answered?

Now chinglu, I've asked you some direct questions. Last time you refused to answer any simple, direct, relevant questions. Try to be a little more honest this time. I replied to your posts, now reply to mine properly else I'll take it from you that you admit you can't retort what I've said.

 

I gave an overview which someone familiar with this stuff would be able to follow. You and Magneto keep claiming to be knowledgeable, you should be able to follow it.

Can't you?

Translation : You don't understand what I've said so you don't accept it.

You want me to dumb it down to your level? Well that excludes using any calculus, vectors or numbers higher than however many fingers and toes you have.

Just like you have a 'short' proof SR is wrong but you can't provide it?

How about you answer my questions about the pdf I wrote and then we can discuss this. Let's stick to one BS claim of your at a time.

 

Pfft, now you picked up this idiotic claim, eh? So easy to disprove. Not that there is any danger that you'll understand.

 

Did you intentionally avoid answering my question? You know clarifying what you are asking?

Is it just the mathematical representation or some real issue with SR conceptually.

And I will give you this much up front.., it has been the better part of 40 years since I dealt with the math involved. In a few weeks it will be 40 years. So I have never here presented myself as currently having a working knowledge of the math. If what you are quibbling over is the math itself just say so. If there is some fundamental issue with SR itself make that clear.

If it is the math, then you are right.., or at least partially right, I am not going to get into it. While I do at times enjoy working through some of the proofs, it is work and I am no longer proficient in any sense of the term.

 

Can you prove no y and z deformation?

 

I am not seeing a proof that deformations are not part of the standard configuration for y and z from you and RPenner.

Why is this taking so long?

 

I'm becoming more and more convinced chinglu either doesn't read much of what he quotes or doesn't understand even basic English. He will quote things, large posts, and then ignore everything in the quote, to the point of demanding he be provided with things he's quoted people providing!

I'm sure he'll demonstrate my point for me shortly, when he 'replies' to me, by which I mean he'll spout his talking points and assertions.

/edit

Oh look, he did it while I was posting! I ask him again to answer some simple questions and he ignores me and demands I answer him, again.

Chinglu, if you aren't going to engage in a discussion by answering our questions why should we answer yours? If you don't show some honesty no one will bother with you. Remember what I said, "I replied to your posts, now reply to mine properly else I'll take it from you that you admit you can't retort what I've said.". Can I take it you admit you cannot retort my pdf? Answer my question and I'll address your most recent post. Fair's fair.

 

Prove under the standard configuration that y and z do not deform or retreat in dishonor.

 

I repeat my request/questions from this post :

Come on Chinglu, I asked you some questions. You can't demand I reply to more of your questions when you won't answer mine.

 

I just checked. He has made 12 posts on this issue, in the last two days. No math in any of them, so it cannot really be the math that is at issue. And nothing other than challenges fitting your above assessment that I could see.

Edit: It's now 13 posts....

 

Stop crying and be the expert you claim.

Prove under the standard configuration that y and z do not deform or retreat in dishonor.