# Apparant 2 directions

#### chinglu

Valued Senior Member
When the SR light sphere acquires the unprimed point (0,k,0), it claims the light sphere moves two different directions along the line y=k in the calculations of the unprimed frame.

On the other hand, in the view of the primed frame, the one SLW moves in 1 direction from the unprimed point (0,k,0).

So, it would seem that SR claims the one SLW moves two different directions from (0,k,0) and does not move two different directions from (0,k,0).

Further, using SR calculations, when the SLW is located at unprimed (0,k,0), it is below the line y=k in the positive x direction and in the calculations of the primed frame, the SLW is above the line y=k when calculated in the positive x direction from unprimed (0,k,0).

So, when the one SLW is located at unprimed (0,k,0), its calculations make contradictory predictions on the direction it will travel along y=k for any further expansion. Also, SR makes contradictory predictions on the physical location whether above or below the line y=k when it is located at unprimed (0,k,0).

Can anyone make these seeming contradictions consistent?

Are there no takers to this question?

Are there no takers to this question?

Yes, you would have thought they would have quickly smacked you down.

Doesn't look like it.

Though I can't understand the science / math (not being one) I am nonetheless fascinated by the interactions of posters. Lets see.

Yes, you would have thought they would have quickly smacked you down.

Doesn't look like it.

Though I can't understand the science / math (not being one) I am nonetheless fascinated by the interactions of posters. Lets see.

They won't come here.

I smell fear.

They won't come here.

I smell fear.

You may well be right. Having ones life long beliefs seriously challanged is no easy thing for those who have put so much stake in them.

In any event, is there any 'dumbed down' ie, non scientific, non mathematical way in which you can elucidate on your OP for the benefit of the non scientists here (me for instance) ?

I smell fear.

Have tried taking a bath?

I 'll hazard a guess as to why you haven't gotten any responses. It's apathy. People just don't care what you have to say on the subject.

It's because chinglu's antiquated notions of 3-d direction don't adequately prepare him for a discussion of the geometry of 4-d special relativity. Or reality, which is also 4-d.

This is a rehash of [thread=110037]the light-sphere and the wire thread[/thread] from a long time ago. We aren't talking about any "thing" moving but rather the intersection between the locus of the world-sheet of the wire and the world-sheet of an off-wire light pulse. The intersection "points" convey no information and are superluminal in speed. But the world line of the intersection is (if I remember right) a hyperbola and so interesting things happen when you confuse 3-d and 4-d geometry, when you confuse points and events. None of these lead to a contradiction in special relativity but only bad assumptions added to special relativity. But as chinglu doesn't begin to argue his point, why should I bother to rebut arguments that haven't actually been made?

Also, it is completely unclear what basis uses to claim that math contradicting him is bad math, because it always turns out to be correct. It appears chinglu can neither form nor respond to logical arguments.

Andrew Bank's old self-published papers are horrible and chinglu's mathless defense of Andrew Bank's math mistakes does not make for good reading.

Last edited:
It's because chinglu's antiquated notions of 3-d direction don't adequately prepare him for a discussion of the geometry of 4-d special relativity. Or reality, which is also 4-d.

This is a rehash of [thread=110037]the light-sphere and the wire thread[/thread] from a long time ago. We aren't talking about any "thing" moving but rather the intersection between the locus of the world-sheet of the wire and the world-sheet of an off-wire light pulse. The intersection "points" convey no information and are superluminal in speed. But the world line of the intersection is (if I remember right) a hyperbola and so interesting things happen when you confuse 3-d and 4-d geometry, when you confuse points and events. None of these lead to a contradiction in special relativity but only bad assumptions added to special relativity. But as chinglu doesn't begin to argue his point, why should I bother to rebut arguments that haven't actually been made?

Also, it is completely unclear what basis uses to claim that math contradicting him is bad math, because it always turns out to be correct. It appears chinglu can neither form nor respond to logical arguments.

Andrew Bank's old self-published papers are horrible and chinglu's mathless defense of Andrew Bank's math mistakes does not make for good reading.

I'm sure you understand 4-d does not resolve this problem.

You see, the way SR works is that light is at some spatial location and a clock at that location has some time value.

So, the unprimed frame claims the SLW will move down the y-line in the positive x-direction with any further spatial expansion from unprimed (0,y,0).

Now, in the primed frame, it claims the SLW will not move down the y-line in the positive x direction from that spatial location.

That is a simple contradiction with one SLW.

Since you evaded the issue, I will spell it out.

Make one SLW move down the y-line in the positive x-direction in space from (0,y,0) (you can have whatever clocks values you want) and have that same SLW not move down the y-line in the positive x-direction from unprimed (0,y,0).

You may well be right. Having ones life long beliefs seriously challanged is no easy thing for those who have put so much stake in them.

In any event, is there any 'dumbed down' ie, non scientific, non mathematical way in which you can elucidate on your OP for the benefit of the non scientists here (me for instance) ?

Yes, SR works with a space coordinate and a time coordinate at any location. So, in a frame that means, for this example (t,0,y,0) in the unprimed frame.

Now, no frame can dispute that light is located at some spatial location. However, they can dispute the time on a clock at that location.

So, for example, if light is location at (0,y,0) then neither frame refutes that is true. They do however have to map that spatial location in their own spatial coordinate system.

Therefore, assume the SLW expands such that it is located at (0,y+h,0) for some very small h. Neither frame can dispute it is at that location in the unprimed frame. They can disagree on the clock values.

Yet, SR claims if the one SLW expands from unprimed (0,y,0), it can move after that to spatial unprimed (0,y+h,0) and also cannot move to spatial unprimed (0,y+h,0). That is a contradiction.

Have tried taking a bath?

I 'll hazard a guess as to why you haven't gotten any responses. It's apathy. People just don't care what you have to say on the subject.

Did you want to contribute yes or no.

It's because chinglu's antiquated notions of 3-d direction don't adequately prepare him for a discussion of the geometry of 4-d special relativity. Or reality, which is also 4-d.

This is a rehash of [thread=110037]the light-sphere and the wire thread[/thread] from a long time ago. We aren't talking about any "thing" moving but rather the intersection between the locus of the world-sheet of the wire and the world-sheet of an off-wire light pulse. The intersection "points" convey no information and are superluminal in speed. But the world line of the intersection is (if I remember right) a hyperbola and so interesting things happen when you confuse 3-d and 4-d geometry, when you confuse points and events. None of these lead to a contradiction in special relativity but only bad assumptions added to special relativity. But as chinglu doesn't begin to argue his point, why should I bother to rebut arguments that haven't actually been made?

Also, it is completely unclear what basis uses to claim that math contradicting him is bad math, because it always turns out to be correct. It appears chinglu can neither form nor respond to logical arguments.

Andrew Bank's old self-published papers are horrible and chinglu's mathless defense of Andrew Bank's math mistakes does not make for good reading.

Also, I looked at your response above. You apparently do not understand when the unprimed says the SLW is at some spatial location, the primed frame cannot dispute that.

For example dx'/dx<0 in your answer holds because it represents SR's claim of the location of the SLW in each frame. So, for example, if dx'/dx<0 if dx > 0, then dx' < 0. See, if the SLW moves from some positive x1 to some x2, that cannot be refuted. Then that means it moved from some x'1 to some x'2 with the LT mappings. Otherwise, you claim the spatial mappings of the SLW under LT are false.

Your basic misunderstanding is that SR cannot refute if the SLW moves from x1 to x2 along a line, SR cannot refute that it is located at x2. Otherwise, SR claims the SLW is at x2 and not at x2, which is a contradiction. That is the part you are having a hard time with.

It's because chinglu's antiquated notions of 3-d direction don't adequately prepare him for a discussion of the geometry of 4-d special relativity. Or reality, which is also 4-d.

This is a rehash of [thread=110037]the light-sphere and the wire thread[/thread] from a long time ago. We aren't talking about any "thing" moving but rather the intersection between the locus of the world-sheet of the wire and the world-sheet of an off-wire light pulse. The intersection "points" convey no information and are superluminal in speed. But the world line of the intersection is (if I remember right) a hyperbola and so interesting things happen when you confuse 3-d and 4-d geometry, when you confuse points and events. None of these lead to a contradiction in special relativity but only bad assumptions added to special relativity. But as chinglu doesn't begin to argue his point, why should I bother to rebut arguments that haven't actually been made?

Also, it is completely unclear what basis uses to claim that math contradicting him is bad math, because it always turns out to be correct. It appears chinglu can neither form nor respond to logical arguments.

Andrew Bank's old self-published papers are horrible and chinglu's mathless defense of Andrew Bank's math mistakes does not make for good reading.

rpenner, thanks for the post. I like your reponses because they contain the least 'ad hominem', and seem to make the most progress in sorting things out.

-----------------------

I'm not sure why folk rail against repetition. If there was no repetition there would basically be no forum / web page / internet .. or has someone discovered something quite new and novel under the sun that they're about to reveal ???

Edited 1st line - redundant 'progress'

Last edited:
Yes, SR works with a space coordinate and a time coordinate at any location. So, in a frame that means, for this example (t,0,y,0) in the unprimed frame.

Now, no frame can dispute that light is located at some spatial location. However, they can dispute the time on a clock at that location.

So, for example, if light is location at (0,y,0) then neither frame refutes that is true. They do however have to map that spatial location in their own spatial coordinate system.

Therefore, assume the SLW expands such that it is located at (0,y+h,0) for some very small h. Neither frame can dispute it is at that location in the unprimed frame. They can disagree on the clock values.

Yet, SR claims if the one SLW expands from unprimed (0,y,0), it can move after that to spatial unprimed (0,y+h,0) and also cannot move to spatial unprimed (0,y+h,0). That is a contradiction.

(I missed this earlier - just saw it in my email inbox).

Thanks. I need to read this and think a lot about it.

Thanks for this. I appreciate that you've kept in mind that I am totally not a scientist / mathematician / physicist, etc, but nonetheless have some curiousity about this. I don't want to bog this discussion down, but there are several things I need clarification of to try to fully understand what you said ..

Yes, SR works with a space coordinate and a time coordinate at any location. So, in a frame that means, for this example (t,0,y,0) in the unprimed frame.

a) (t,0,y,0) - is that just denoting one time and three space coordinates ? If so, why two '0's ? If not, what does it denote ?
b) I understand 'frame' but what is an unprimed frame.

Now, no frame can dispute that light is located at some spatial location. However, they can dispute the time on a clock at that location.

OK ..

So, for example, if light is location at (0,y,0) then neither frame refutes that is true. They do however have to map that spatial location in their own spatial coordinate system.

Therefore, assume the SLW expands such that it is located at (0,y+h,0) for some very small h. Neither frame can dispute it is at that location in the unprimed frame. They can disagree on the clock values.

I need clarification of my earlier queries before I understand that. Also,

a) what is SLW ?
b) what is 'h' in (0,y+h,0)

Yet, SR claims if the one SLW expands from unprimed (0,y,0), it can move after that to spatial unprimed (0,y+h,0) and also cannot move to spatial unprimed (0,y+h,0). That is a contradiction.

I'll see how I go in understanding that if you could clarify the above. Thank you for keeping your answer to me brief and (mostly) understandable.

Can anyone make these seeming contradictions consistent?
Yes, it's done by you learning to do Lorentz transforms, how to properly construct formalisms of thought experiments and then correctly understand how to use the transforms on said formalisation.

Come on chinglu, this is what you always do. You badly describe some physical setup but do not go through the explicit line by line calculations yourself, instead you just declare there is a problem. We've been on this particular merry-go-round before.

Go on, why don't you show us the line by line formalisation and application of explicitly stated Lorentz transformations and then algebraically state the contradiction within the formalism. Show us all you can actually do this sort of stuff, since every time you've done a thread like this before it has ALWAYS turned out you cannot actually do Lorentz transforms nor do you understand when someone like myself or Rpenner goes through them in detail. You've also shown you don't understand how relativity can allow, in certain circumstances, the order of events to change.

Come on, you're the one making a claim here, prove it.

Yes, you would have thought they would have quickly smacked you down.

Doesn't look like it.
Because this is not the first time chinglu has done this and each and every time he has done it in the past it turns out the problem is he cannot do even the most basic of calculations and doesn't understand it when we walk him through his mistake, again and again. We all know how this is going to go, chinglu makes a lot of whining delusional claims about how no one can retort him, someone retorts him, he doesn't understand, repeat 2-10 times, chinglu goes away, returns a few weeks later with a new set up that he's sure this time is disproving relativity, rinse and repeat.

You may well be right. Having ones life long beliefs seriously challanged is no easy thing for those who have put so much stake in them.
Firstly no one is scared of chinglu, I'm certain he couldn't pass even a foundation course in mathematical physics. Secondly you imply fear where none exists. If I could disprove relativity I'd publish it tomorrow. I'd not sleep until I'd written it up, checked my work 3, 6, 10 times, conferred with colleagues and then submitted it to a journal. I'd love to publish a disproof of relativity. Or quantum mechanics. And that is despite the fact it would completely invalidate my pre-existing publications and doctoral thesis. I imagine most theoretical physicists would be likewise. But I don't publish such a disproof because there is no known disproof, all evidence from experiments is consistent with relativity and it is on a sound mathematical foundation. Science is about following the evidence and presently there is no evidence against relativity, experimental or mathematical.

Why is there nothing to fear? Because the best way to make a name for yourself is to demolish a pillar of your domain of science. Grants, professorships, awards, fame, all of it would follow anyone who gives conclusive disproof of special relativity. Plus it would be great for the community because more money and resources flow into a domain when there's new fertile problem areas to work on. In the years the followed Einstein kicking over Newton there was a flurry of work in relativity. When someone published a new potential way of viewing gravity which violates special relativity there was a flurry of activity. Everyone wants to be the first to find something new when you demolish the old.

It is a standard mistake of the non-scientific, particularly hacks who look for excuses for their own failures, to think that scientists fear having previous work refuted, that they'd 'lose' their lifes work or even loss their job. Science involves trial and error, improving upon mistakes. Religions might well rely on "We're right now, we'll always be right!" but science relies on "New evidence has invalided the current best model, we must improve it!".

Did Newton stop being a great physicist when we experimentally observed relativity and quantum mechanics? No. Did Einstein stop being a good scientist when we discovered the electroweak force, something not in his attempts at a theory of everything? The merit of someone's work is not measured by "Is this the absolute truth, never to be replaced, improved or modified?"? No, it is measured by its ability at the time to model and understand the available data. When new ideas and new data come along some work is demolished or modified and a good scientist welcomes that. But even if you were to think all scientists are selfish paranoid fame chasers the fact is publishing a disproof of relativity gets a lot more money, awards and fame than burying it.

In any event, is there any 'dumbed down' ie, non scientific, non mathematical way in which you can elucidate on your OP for the benefit of the non scientists here (me for instance) ?
You are. unfortunately, the sort of person chinglu tries to prey on. By even 1st year undergraduate standards what chinglu posted is a very vague, poorly formalised and certainly utterly unjustified scenario and assertion. Of course if you haven't done mathematics or science at university chinglu's post might seem complicated and that surely he knows what he is talking about. He doesn't, I assure you. Feel free to check his post history, namely the threads he's started over the years. You'll find more than a few where a number of us explain mistake after mistake after mistake to him, in many different ways. None of it he takes on board, I doubt he understands much, if any, of it either.

Believe me, if chinglu had a sound disproof of relativity I'd be calling into work sick tomorrow so I can have the disproof written up in time to get submitted to ArXiv for the Friday pre-weekend update. Chinglu is no more convincing than Time Cube and only slightly more coherent.

Yes, it's done by you learning to do Lorentz transforms, how to properly construct formalisms of thought experiments and then correctly understand how to use the transforms on said formalisation.

Come on chinglu, this is what you always do. You badly describe some physical setup but do not go through the explicit line by line calculations yourself, instead you just declare there is a problem. We've been on this particular merry-go-round before.

Go on, why don't you show us the line by line formalisation and application of explicitly stated Lorentz transformations and then algebraically state the contradiction within the formalism. Show us all you can actually do this sort of stuff, since every time you've done a thread like this before it has ALWAYS turned out you cannot actually do Lorentz transforms nor do you understand when someone like myself or Rpenner goes through them in detail. You've also shown you don't understand how relativity can allow, in certain circumstances, the order of events to change.

Come on, you're the one making a claim here, prove it.

Because this is not the first time chinglu has done this and each and every time he has done it in the past it turns out the problem is he cannot do even the most basic of calculations and doesn't understand it when we walk him through his mistake, again and again. We all know how this is going to go, chinglu makes a lot of whining delusional claims about how no one can retort him, someone retorts him, he doesn't understand, repeat 2-10 times, chinglu goes away, returns a few weeks later with a new set up that he's sure this time is disproving relativity, rinse and repeat.

Firstly no one is scared of chinglu, I'm certain he couldn't pass even a foundation course in mathematical physics. Secondly you imply fear where none exists. If I could disprove relativity I'd publish it tomorrow. I'd not sleep until I'd written it up, checked my work 3, 6, 10 times, conferred with colleagues and then submitted it to a journal. I'd love to publish a disproof of relativity. Or quantum mechanics. And that is despite the fact it would completely invalidate my pre-existing publications and doctoral thesis. I imagine most theoretical physicists would be likewise. But I don't publish such a disproof because there is no known disproof, all evidence from experiments is consistent with relativity and it is on a sound mathematical foundation. Science is about following the evidence and presently there is no evidence against relativity, experimental or mathematical.

Why is there nothing to fear? Because the best way to make a name for yourself is to demolish a pillar of your domain of science. Grants, professorships, awards, fame, all of it would follow anyone who gives conclusive disproof of special relativity. Plus it would be great for the community because more money and resources flow into a domain when there's new fertile problem areas to work on. In the years the followed Einstein kicking over Newton there was a flurry of work in relativity. When someone published a new potential way of viewing gravity which violates special relativity there was a flurry of activity. Everyone wants to be the first to find something new when you demolish the old.

It is a standard mistake of the non-scientific, particularly hacks who look for excuses for their own failures, to think that scientists fear having previous work refuted, that they'd 'lose' their lifes work or even loss their job. Science involves trial and error, improving upon mistakes. Religions might well rely on "We're right now, we'll always be right!" but science relies on "New evidence has invalided the current best model, we must improve it!".

Did Newton stop being a great physicist when we experimentally observed relativity and quantum mechanics? No. Did Einstein stop being a good scientist when we discovered the electroweak force, something not in his attempts at a theory of everything? The merit of someone's work is not measured by "Is this the absolute truth, never to be replaced, improved or modified?"? No, it is measured by its ability at the time to model and understand the available data. When new ideas and new data come along some work is demolished or modified and a good scientist welcomes that. But even if you were to think all scientists are selfish paranoid fame chasers the fact is publishing a disproof of relativity gets a lot more money, awards and fame than burying it.

You are. unfortunately, the sort of person chinglu tries to prey on. By even 1st year undergraduate standards what chinglu posted is a very vague, poorly formalised and certainly utterly unjustified scenario and assertion. Of course if you haven't done mathematics or science at university chinglu's post might seem complicated and that surely he knows what he is talking about. He doesn't, I assure you. Feel free to check his post history, namely the threads he's started over the years. You'll find more than a few where a number of us explain mistake after mistake after mistake to him, in many different ways. None of it he takes on board, I doubt he understands much, if any, of it either.

Believe me, if chinglu had a sound disproof of relativity I'd be calling into work sick tomorrow so I can have the disproof written up in time to get submitted to ArXiv for the Friday pre-weekend update. Chinglu is no more convincing than Time Cube and only slightly more coherent.

Just a quick one for the moment ..

You are. unfortunately, the sort of person chinglu tries to prey on.

Thank you for your post, which I'll read in much more detail soon. No one 'preys' on me. I consider the exchange of ideas, no matter how radical or 'out there' very interesting and somewhat fun.

Even though I don't understand the science / math of it in this case, I can usually read between the lines in these polemics and come to some tentative conclusion as to what people are trying to do.

No one 'preys' on me.
Chinglu is out to deceive and con people, regardless of whether you are out to be conned (obviously no one is out to be conned...). He bands around buzzwords and throws in the tiniest smattering of algebra but never actually does any calculation, all of his claims amount to words and all of his responses to our retorts are essentially just wordy assertions.

The concepts he likes to rag on, namely countability and special relativity 2d Lorentz transforms, are concepts taught to 1st years at university, often in their very first term and so they are not out of the realms of understanding of someone with a good high school maths ability and a few hours of free time on their hands. He's been at this for years essentially rehashing the same argument. If he scratched a little deeper into the mathematics, to understand the concept of group transformations on vector spaces (which is what the underlying formalism of Lorentz transforms is) he would see that the mathematical structure of Lorentz transforms precludes the sorts of issues he claims exist. But even "barely beyond highschool" is beyond him so all he can do is waste his (and unfortunately your) time with threads like this, telling himself the reason people get tired of his crap is because of 'fear'. I want chinglu to send his work to a reputable journal. Why? Because I'm certain they'll reject it for a variety of reasons. Why? Because I grasp enough relativity to see the errors in his claims. I've spent many hours explaining them to him in the past. And yet he continues.

I do hope he has a job and this is just his hobby. At least then he'd be doing something constructive with his existence.

AlphaNumeric ..

Chinglu is out to deceive and con people, regardless of whether you are out to be conned (obviously no one is out to be conned...).

This is about the only issue I find .. not easy .. to credit. The question is - why ? Why would he want to con me (and other people) ? Of what profit to him would this be ? No material benefit, and any sense of self aggrandisement he might derive would have evaporated long ago, if the polemics have been as you say they have, and for such a period of time. So it continues to pique my curiosity as to why. What is he hoping to get out of it ? I form the view that he passionately believes what he believes (rightly or wrongly) and is stubborn in this regard. I've read enough critisisms of SR (particulalry that of Herbert Dingle) not to dismiss detractors out of hand. Where would we be without detractors ?

Other than that, everything else you said in your posts 15 and 17 sound reasonable to me.

You put some questions and propositions to Chinglu in post 15.

He is conspicuous by his absence.

Last edited:
There is a wide variety of people who believe incredible things, sometimes due to confirmation bias (a human trait to easily accept facts in line with our preconceptions and to be blind to facts not in line with those preconceptions) and sometimes due to over-reliance on authority (a human trait of slavishly adhering to some chosen authority regardless of truth or justice). These same traits that allow humans to have national identities and are a boon to education in youth are a detriment in science and math beyond rote learning because in science progress is only made in finding data that is not compatible with old ideas so that we can generate new ideas while in math progress is only made in formal logical development.

http://www.spring.org.uk/2012/12/wh...d-things-and-8-ways-to-change-their-minds.php
http://www.michaelshermer.com/weird-things/
http://www.techsoc.com/weird.htm
http://www.michaelspecter.com/denialism/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/books/05book.html

Because we cannot engage chinglu with facts (GPS designed with relativity strongly supports the notion that relativity and not Newtonian physics is the better model) or logic (the Lorentz transform is a hyperbolic analogue of rotation, Einstein could not use a primed-letters-are-coordinates-in-the-other-frame convention when the convention was established after his 1905 paper, he relates via addition primed and unprimed coordinates before defining transformations from one frame to the other, Einstein actually spells out that he is using Latin letters for one frame and Greek letters for the other, a detector with strong relative motion will "see" both light and raindrops come in at different angles than a detector in the same position at relative rest), we strongly believe he is not approaching the subject fairly. We don't know if he seems fixated on Andrew Banks because of outright slavish adherence to authority or merely because of confirmation bias (Andrew Banks writes the type of nonsense that chinglu wants to read even if it isn't held together with good logic).

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anti-relativity
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/07/29/mocking-a-silly-antirelativity/
http://www.salon.com/2000/07/06/einstein/

Science is about the communication of useful, precise and predictive descriptions of phenomena in the universe. Ultimately this means facts, logic and math must be used in scientific argument. Authority in math is non-existent. 2 + 2 = 4 not because I said so but because the definitions of those terms demand it to anyone who knows logic. But once a proof is formalized in logic, the proven theorem has the same truth as the axioms used to prove it and human knowledge is increased. For thousands of years, Euclidean geometry abstracted out of (perhaps) Egyptian land surveying techniques had been the only geometry widely taught and the basis for Newton's thoughts about space and motion. Yet (as should be obvious since the surface of the Earth is not a Euclidean plane), other possible self-consistent geometries exist. Einstein's special relativity is (as was famously shown in 1908) such a self-consistent four-dimensional geometry. Only by introducing notions at odds with the axioms of special relativity can one produce contradictions -- among these are assumptions of absolute simultaneity or absolute length or absolute 3-direction.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
http://nongeometric.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/sr2.pdf

Herbert Dingle, like chinglu, was not fairly criticizing special relativity and so is acting like a mere "denialist" rather than a mathematician or scientist. Famously, Dingle spoke of two clocks A and B in relative motion and said according to relativity since each is ticking slow relative to the the other, they each must say they are ticking slow relative to themselves which is a contradiction. This is a truly unworthy argument since it completely ignores the space part of space-time and that the Lorentz transform is the analogue of a rotation in space-time. It's a bit sad that Dingle who wasted 40 years of his life over a bit of trivial geometry.

Rotation analogue of Dingle's argument. Assume $$\theta$$ is small and non-zero.
$$\begin{pmatrix} x' \\ y' \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \cos \theta & \quad & - \sin \theta \\ \sin \theta & \quad & \cos \theta \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \end{pmatrix} \\ \begin{pmatrix} x'' \\ y'' \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \cos \theta & \quad & \sin \theta \\ -\sin \theta & \quad & \cos \theta \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} x' \\ y' \end{pmatrix}$$
According to Dingle, if $$\begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}$$ then $$x' = \cos \theta < 1$$ thus he argues that $$x'' < x' < x$$ when actually:
$$\begin{pmatrix} x'' \\ y'' \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \cos \theta & \quad & \sin \theta \\ -\sin \theta & \quad & \cos \theta \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} x' \\ y' \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \cos \theta & \quad & \sin \theta \\ -\sin \theta & \quad & \cos \theta \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \cos \theta & \quad & - \sin \theta \\ \sin \theta & \quad & \cos \theta \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \cos^2 \theta + \sin^2 \theta & \quad & \cos \theta \sin \theta - \cos \theta \sin \theta \\ \cos \theta \sin \theta - \cos \theta \sin \theta & \quad & \cos^2 \theta + \sin^2 \theta \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}1 & \quad & 0 \\ 0 & \quad & 1 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \end{pmatrix}$$
Thus $$x'' = x$$ when you actually do the math. Thus the argument is flawed for ignoring y.

In the same way, Dingle's argument about t'' and t is worthless for it ignores x. And ignoring x when talking about moving is silly. We are trying to help chinglu avoid wasting 40 years of his life in the same way as Dingle and in the alternative we are trying to point out to all others the sterility and futility of trying to follow in either's footsteps.

http://mathpages.com/home/kmath024/kmath024.htm
http://mathpages.com/home/kmath317/kmath317.htm

Last edited:
Yes, it's done by you learning to do Lorentz transforms, how to properly construct formalisms of thought experiments and then correctly understand how to use the transforms on said formalisation.

Come on chinglu, this is what you always do. You badly describe some physical setup but do not go through the explicit line by line calculations yourself, instead you just declare there is a problem. We've been on this particular merry-go-round before.

Go on, why don't you show us the line by line formalisation and application of explicitly stated Lorentz transformations and then algebraically state the contradiction within the formalism. Show us all you can actually do this sort of stuff, since every time you've done a thread like this before it has ALWAYS turned out you cannot actually do Lorentz transforms nor do you understand when someone like myself or Rpenner goes through them in detail. You've also shown you don't understand how relativity can allow, in certain circumstances, the order of events to change.

Come on, you're the one making a claim here, prove it.

Because this is not the first time chinglu has done this and each and every time he has done it in the past it turns out the problem is he cannot do even the most basic of calculations and doesn't understand it when we walk him through his mistake, again and again. We all know how this is going to go, chinglu makes a lot of whining delusional claims about how no one can retort him, someone retorts him, he doesn't understand, repeat 2-10 times, chinglu goes away, returns a few weeks later with a new set up that he's sure this time is disproving relativity, rinse and repeat.

Firstly no one is scared of chinglu, I'm certain he couldn't pass even a foundation course in mathematical physics. Secondly you imply fear where none exists. If I could disprove relativity I'd publish it tomorrow. I'd not sleep until I'd written it up, checked my work 3, 6, 10 times, conferred with colleagues and then submitted it to a journal. I'd love to publish a disproof of relativity. Or quantum mechanics. And that is despite the fact it would completely invalidate my pre-existing publications and doctoral thesis. I imagine most theoretical physicists would be likewise. But I don't publish such a disproof because there is no known disproof, all evidence from experiments is consistent with relativity and it is on a sound mathematical foundation. Science is about following the evidence and presently there is no evidence against relativity, experimental or mathematical.

Why is there nothing to fear? Because the best way to make a name for yourself is to demolish a pillar of your domain of science. Grants, professorships, awards, fame, all of it would follow anyone who gives conclusive disproof of special relativity. Plus it would be great for the community because more money and resources flow into a domain when there's new fertile problem areas to work on. In the years the followed Einstein kicking over Newton there was a flurry of work in relativity. When someone published a new potential way of viewing gravity which violates special relativity there was a flurry of activity. Everyone wants to be the first to find something new when you demolish the old.

It is a standard mistake of the non-scientific, particularly hacks who look for excuses for their own failures, to think that scientists fear having previous work refuted, that they'd 'lose' their lifes work or even loss their job. Science involves trial and error, improving upon mistakes. Religions might well rely on "We're right now, we'll always be right!" but science relies on "New evidence has invalided the current best model, we must improve it!".

Did Newton stop being a great physicist when we experimentally observed relativity and quantum mechanics? No. Did Einstein stop being a good scientist when we discovered the electroweak force, something not in his attempts at a theory of everything? The merit of someone's work is not measured by "Is this the absolute truth, never to be replaced, improved or modified?"? No, it is measured by its ability at the time to model and understand the available data. When new ideas and new data come along some work is demolished or modified and a good scientist welcomes that. But even if you were to think all scientists are selfish paranoid fame chasers the fact is publishing a disproof of relativity gets a lot more money, awards and fame than burying it.

You are. unfortunately, the sort of person chinglu tries to prey on. By even 1st year undergraduate standards what chinglu posted is a very vague, poorly formalised and certainly utterly unjustified scenario and assertion. Of course if you haven't done mathematics or science at university chinglu's post might seem complicated and that surely he knows what he is talking about. He doesn't, I assure you. Feel free to check his post history, namely the threads he's started over the years. You'll find more than a few where a number of us explain mistake after mistake after mistake to him, in many different ways. None of it he takes on board, I doubt he understands much, if any, of it either.

Believe me, if chinglu had a sound disproof of relativity I'd be calling into work sick tomorrow so I can have the disproof written up in time to get submitted to ArXiv for the Friday pre-weekend update. Chinglu is no more convincing than Time Cube and only slightly more coherent.

AN, does the SLW move one direction from (0,y,0) or two directions.

You never said.