Apparant 2 directions
- Thread starter chinglu
- Start date
Despite me telling him just this weekend that publication does not imply proof and experiments which do not contradict special relativity are not viewed as proof of special relativity
Uh, let me try to help you.
IOP published this article.
Therefore, your existence is claiming that IOP is in error.
Can you explain why IOP would publish a false article?
Otherwise, this article proves the GPS sagnac is not picked up by MMX and MMX is in error.
Do you have a prove that support SR under these conditions?
Here is the x-t slice at y=10, z=0 in the coordinate systems S and S'. Green and red world-lines have been drawn in to illustrate that the place (x,y,z) = (0,10,0) in green is not the same thing as the place (x',y',z') = (0,10,0) in red.
Blue is the Hyperbola $$\mathcal{H}$$ where the SLW starting at the origin event (t,x,y,z) = (0,0,0,0) = (t', x', y', z') intersects this 2-dimensional world-sheet. $$H_{-1}, \, H_0, \, H_1, \, H_2, \, H_3, \, H_4, \, H_5$$ correspond to my table of points on the hyperbola. Notice that $$H_0, C \; \textrm{and} \; A$$ are all on the green line, while $$H_4 \; \textrm{and} \; A$$ are on the red line.
In frame S, the green line is the closest "place" to the origin event and thus it is the "place" which is hit first by the light. In frame S', this is the role of the red line. Thus in frame S, event $$H_0$$ happens before event $$H_4$$ while events $$H_{-1}$$ and $$H_1$$ happen at the same time. In frame S', event $$H_4$$ happens before event $$H_0$$ while events $$H_3$$ and $$H_5$$ happen at the same time. This is called relativity of simultaneity and is discussed in section 2 of Einstein's 1905 paper and every single textbook on the subject.
It is absurd for Andrew Banks or chinglu to think this is a mysterious part of special relativity only recently uncovered -- this is just a personal misunderstanding of Andrew Banks spread on vixra.org. On that note, I wrote the following comment on his recent paper:
http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0144
--
Exactly where in your drawings are you proving that both frames agree the one and only one SLW is traveling in the same direction along the line y=yg?
Relativity of simultaneity was demonstrated by Einstein in his 1905 paper before the derivation of the velocity addition formula and the Lorentz transform. Here the events $$H_0$$ and $$H_4$$ happen at the same time in the frame S'' which moves at speed c/3 relative to both Frame S and Frame S' concepts of stationary. Therefore in some frames (like Frame S) $$H_0$$ happens before $$H_4$$ while in other frames (like frame S') $$H_4$$ happens before $$H_0$$.
The succession of events that happen along the wire as unrelated parts of the light sphere hit different parts of the wire happen in the only way consistent with the postulates: the expanding light sphere first hits the wire in the place closest to the origin of the light sphere and it hits further spots later. By insisting that the direction of the successive spots should always start at $$H_0$$ and only arrive later at $$H_4$$, both Andrew Banks and chinglu are not arguing that relativity is inconsistent, they are advertising that they can't think logically about relativity.
The "Place" of A in Frame S is the green Line. The "Place" of A in frame S' is the red line. (For the visually impaired I will explain that these two lines do not coincide except at event A.) In both frame the "Place" of A is where the light first hits because in both frames A happens simultaneously with the origin of the light cone, but at y=10 not y=0.
The event where the green line hits the light cone is $$H_0$$. The event where the red line hits the light cone is $$H_4$$. In the process of proving the direction of "movement" associated with the hyperbola reverses direction when the time-order of $$H_0$$ relative to $$H_4$$ changes, Andrew Banks has demonstrated that special relativity is self-consistent where it might not have been. Andrew Banks and chinglu never seem to remember that relativity is a theory about time and space and that therefore velocities and simultaneity and position are all part of the conversation.
We may never know why Andrew Banks removed his vixra paper on mirrors, but we should now know why he should be embarrassed to have any of them online at all.
The succession of events that happen along the wire as unrelated parts of the light sphere hit different parts of the wire happen in the only way consistent with the postulates: the expanding light sphere first hits the wire in the place closest to the origin of the light sphere and it hits further spots later. By insisting that the direction of the successive spots should always start at $$H_0$$ and only arrive later at $$H_4$$, both Andrew Banks and chinglu are not arguing that relativity is inconsistent, they are advertising that they can't think logically about relativity.
The "Place" of A in Frame S is the green Line. The "Place" of A in frame S' is the red line. (For the visually impaired I will explain that these two lines do not coincide except at event A.) In both frame the "Place" of A is where the light first hits because in both frames A happens simultaneously with the origin of the light cone, but at y=10 not y=0.
The event where the green line hits the light cone is $$H_0$$. The event where the red line hits the light cone is $$H_4$$. In the process of proving the direction of "movement" associated with the hyperbola reverses direction when the time-order of $$H_0$$ relative to $$H_4$$ changes, Andrew Banks has demonstrated that special relativity is self-consistent where it might not have been. Andrew Banks and chinglu never seem to remember that relativity is a theory about time and space and that therefore velocities and simultaneity and position are all part of the conversation.
We may never know why Andrew Banks removed his vixra paper on mirrors, but we should now know why he should be embarrassed to have any of them online at all.
Last edited:
chinglu, I will take it from the fact you had more than a week to think of a response to my last post where I do all of the relevant special relativity calculations to demonstrate you're mistaken and yet provided no response that you cannot retort them. If you were honest and not just a troll you'd have the decency to acknowledge someone provided the calculations you demanded. At the start of the thread you complain how no one replies to you, that they must be scared, yet when you cannot reply to us we're supposed to just be fine with it?
You demanded the calculations, I provided. You have given no response, no acknowledgement and instead you try to change the subject to the MMX/SR issue you've already got a thread for. If you cannot keep on topic because someone has proven you are, once again, utterly ignorant of relativity then so be it. In the future I'll just link to this thread every time you start a new "Relativity disproven!" thread and highlight how no one should bother replying to you because you're too dishonest/lazy/stupid to understand relativity and reply to those of us who can do relativity.
If you cannot respond to or even acknowledge my last post then I'll conclude your reason for being here is to troll. Which, judging from your recent PM to me, is exactly why you're here.
You demanded the calculations, I provided. You have given no response, no acknowledgement and instead you try to change the subject to the MMX/SR issue you've already got a thread for. If you cannot keep on topic because someone has proven you are, once again, utterly ignorant of relativity then so be it. In the future I'll just link to this thread every time you start a new "Relativity disproven!" thread and highlight how no one should bother replying to you because you're too dishonest/lazy/stupid to understand relativity and reply to those of us who can do relativity.
If you cannot respond to or even acknowledge my last post then I'll conclude your reason for being here is to troll. Which, judging from your recent PM to me, is exactly why you're here.
Relativity of simultaneity was demonstrated by Einstein in his 1905 paper before the derivation of the velocity addition formula and the Lorentz transform. Here the events $$H_0$$ and $$H_4$$ happen at the same time in the frame S'' which moves at speed c/3 relative to both Frame S and Frame S' concepts of stationary. Therefore in some frames (like Frame S) $$H_0$$ happens before $$H_4$$ while in other frames (like frame S') $$H_4$$ happens before $$H_0$$.
The succession of events that happen along the wire as unrelated parts of the light sphere hit different parts of the wire happen in the only way consistent with the postulates: the expanding light sphere first hits the wire in the place closest to the origin of the light sphere and it hits further spots later. By insisting that the direction of the successive spots should always start at $$H_0$$ and only arrive later at $$H_4$$, both Andrew Banks and chinglu are not arguing that relativity is inconsistent, they are advertising that they can't think logically about relativity.
The "Place" of A in Frame S is the green Line. The "Place" of A in frame S' is the red line. (For the visually impaired I will explain that these two lines do not coincide except at event A.) In both frame the "Place" of A is where the light first hits because in both frames A happens simultaneously with the origin of the light cone, but at y=10 not y=0.
The event where the green line hits the light cone is $$H_0$$. The event where the red line hits the light cone is $$H_4$$. In the process of proving the direction of "movement" associated with the hyperbola reverses direction when the time-order of $$H_0$$ relative to $$H_4$$ changes, Andrew Banks has demonstrated that special relativity is self-consistent where it might not have been. Andrew Banks and chinglu never seem to remember that relativity is a theory about time and space and that therefore velocities and simultaneity and position are all part of the conversation.
We may never know why Andrew Banks removed his vixra paper on mirrors, but we should now know why he should be embarrassed to have any of them online at all.
RPenner,
ROS has nothing to do with this issue.
When the points are on different sides of the y-axis, then you can claim ROS. But, we are talking about one SLW moving 2 different directions along a y-line.
You have yet to prove how one SLW does this MAGIC.
You have not indicated either how one SLW moves 2 different directions along a y line. Now, when are you going to prove this can happen under SR?
This will mean you have the math to prove your case.
As of yet, you have not proven one SLW can do this magic.
That is the whole point here.
Your inability to respond to my lengthy, quantitative post, despite there being a considerable amount of time since I posted it, speaks volumes.
I addressed your claim and it is quite obvious you don't understand what I said. If you did you'd at least respond to specific parts of it. Instead you just repeat your assertion ignoring everything said to you. I explained, in detail, how you are misrepresenting relativity, relativity doesn't say it moves two directions simultaneously in the same frame, but rather different frames see certain events in different orders. The consistency of the relativistic formulation is illustrated within my post, which you have completely ignored.
Thank you for proving you are a troll. You demand details and then ignore when they are provided. From now on I'll just link to this thread whenever you repeat your demands, showing that you cannot even acknowledge details when they are provided.
I addressed your claim and it is quite obvious you don't understand what I said. If you did you'd at least respond to specific parts of it. Instead you just repeat your assertion ignoring everything said to you. I explained, in detail, how you are misrepresenting relativity, relativity doesn't say it moves two directions simultaneously in the same frame, but rather different frames see certain events in different orders. The consistency of the relativistic formulation is illustrated within my post, which you have completely ignored.
Thank you for proving you are a troll. You demand details and then ignore when they are provided. From now on I'll just link to this thread whenever you repeat your demands, showing that you cannot even acknowledge details when they are provided.
Perhaps you can point to me the post on how you reconcile one SLW moving 2 different directions along one y line.
I have not seen a post from you that makes this possible.
But, consider this simple logic.
Put a pencil on a y line and make it move 2 different directions while it moves one direction.
Both Rp and I have addressed your claims. Unlike your arm waving assertions we did the algebra and demonstrated that you do not understand what SR actually says, as illustrated by your misrepresentation " explain how one SLW can move two different directions along the same y line". Due to your lack of understanding and inability to formalise any description of the system you have reached a flawed conclusion due to mixing different frame points of view. There is only one light sphere, which only moves in one direction in any particular frame. The order in which certain points are hit by the light sphere is frame dependent. The reason the order swaps when the boost velocity is high enough is because the boost results in a translation along the boost axis.
I went through the algebra and demonstrated it. And then I gave a simplified analogous example, which I'll repeat. Consider 2 points, x and x+h. If x>0 then |x| < |x+h| so something moving along the axis, starting at 0, will hit x before x+h. However, if x<-h then |x+h|<|x|, the inequality has swapped, and therefore anything moving from 0 towards the points will hit x+h before hitting x. The translation of x from "positive" to "sufficiently negative" results in the |x|<|x+h| swapping to |x|>|x+h|. Under a Lorentz boost in the positive x direction points are translated in the negative x direction.
Before a Lorentz boost, ie we set x>0 initially, the point (x,10,0) is closer to the origin than (x+h,10,0) (for h>0), ie |x|<|x+h|. AFTER the Lorentz boost along the x axis we have new points (x',10,0) and (x'+h',10,0), where now |x'|>|x'+h'| and therefore is FURTHER from the origin of the new frame.
You have been shown the algebra. Under a Lorentz boost in the positive x direction we get $$x \to \gamma(x-vt)$$. For t,v sufficiently large it is possible for x' to be negative. Which is EXACTLY what happens in your scenario. Seriously, put in the numbers you give (which I also did for you previously) and you'll see. Since you're no doubt too stupid to even do this I'll give another basic example. Let's say x=1 and h=0.1, so we have 2 points on the x axis, p = 1 and q = 1.1. p is closer to the origin than q. Let's apply a translation to both of them, say -10, so now p' = 1-10 = -9. q' = 1.1 - 10 = -8.9. Now q' is closer to the origin than p'. If we'd only done a translation of say -1/2 then it wouldn't have swapped but for a large enough shift which is closer to the origin swaps. Lorentz boosts rescale and translate the spatial components in the boost direction, it is right there in the expression $$x' = \gamma(x-vt)$$, the -vt translates and the $$\gamma$$ scales.
This is basic mathematics. The -vt term obviously moves the point in the negative direction. For large enough v,t x-vt will be negative. You have been shown this in both full algebraic generality and in terms of specific numbers pertaining to your example. Rather than respond to this you have been flat out dishonest and ignored the details, details you demanded again and again, and continued to misrepresent what relativity says. Relativity does not say the light wave moves in two directions at the same time at the same place, you have been explicitly shown that in each frame the light wave moves in a single direction. The points in question move due to the Lorentz boost's translation effect and hence their distance from the origin changes.
Your continued refusal to discuss details, your deliberate dishonesty in misrepresenting relativity even after being corrected, your inability to do any calculations yourself all point to you being a deliberate troll. At least I hope you're doing all of this deliberately, as your attempts at taunting me via PM would suggest. The alternative is you are really this dishonest and really this stupid. Either way you have backed yourself into a corner, in that the mathematics is so simple, so straightforward, that anyone with any understanding of basic algebra can follow it and see how you're lying when you claim no one has addressed your position. The fact you're wheeling out exactly the same scenario you tried 2 years ago shows you aren't interested in learning relativity, else you'd have done so in the intervening period.
The final evidence you're deliberately dishonest is the last part of your post
Rpenner and I are not the last word in relativity. There are tons of things in relativity I cannot do the derivations of, that doesn't make them wrong. I don't know how to speak Japanese, doesn't mean it isn't a real language. I cannot provide the proof to Fermat's Last Theorem, doesn't mean Wiles was wrong.
If you honestly believe your position hasn't been refuted but were honest you'd have phrased your closing remark as "This shows my example has not been refuted yet". Instead you go for the exaggerated and blatantly dishonest "this proves SR/G is a crackpot theory".
Here's a tip, if you're going to try to justify your position through dishonesty and deception don't make it so blatantly obvious you have nothing to support your case. The use of excessive assertions makes your deception obvious. If your lies can be exposed by simply reading the thread thread readers are not going to buy your lies.
So I'll repeat what I've been saying to you recently, can you refute the mathematical description of the system I've provided you? Thus far you have not even addressed it beyond summary dismissal. Even after the 2 years since I first provided you with the proper SR formalism of the scenario, have you nothing to say?
Thought not.
You failed to address the light postulate in the primed frame.
Prove that the primed frame agrees with the direction of travel as does the light postulate of the unprimed frame.
They do not agree.