I will provide just one argument, not 100, as Einstein had required, to prove that his theory of relativity is invalid.
Thus, as can be seen in §10 of Einstein’s 1905 paper the first postulate of that theory requires that the mass m of a body be represented by exactly the same quantity m in any system. However, the Lorentz transformations (which, as can be seen in that same paper, theory of relativity cannot even derive) derive the same mass in K to be beta^3m. It is impossible for one and the same mass in one and the same system K to have two different values, respectively, m and beta^3m, unless beta = 1, that is, unless the theory of relativity is invalid.
Rest mass is the same in any frame. What you are describing is 'relativistic mass', which is dependent on the relative motion of frames. Hence 'relativistic'.
In the equation E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + |p|^2 the 'm' is rest mass. In the expression E = mc^2 it's not clear if the m is rest mass or relativistic mass. If it's rest mass then it's common practice to put a subscript 0 on m to show it in that expression. If you are then considering relativistic mass, you'd have E = gmc^2 where g is the Gamma factor. But at now point in any part of relativity does it say what you think it says.
Don't you think someone would have noticed that by now? That time and again we measure high velocity objects having greater inertia than when they are at rest, yet relativity mentions something about invariant mass.
I would suggest you actually learn some special relativity before making wild claims like this. Did you not stop yourself and think "Shouldn't someone have noticed this very clear self contradiction in the last 100+ years?" or did you just think its some kind of mass conspiracy?
In the equation E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + |p|^2 the 'm' is rest mass. In the expression E = mc^2 it's not clear if the m is rest mass or relativistic mass. If it's rest mass then it's common practice to put a subscript 0 on m to show it in that expression. If you are then considering relativistic mass, you'd have E = gmc^2 where g is the Gamma factor. But at now point in any part of relativity does it say what you think it says.
Don't you think someone would have noticed that by now? That time and again we measure high velocity objects having greater inertia than when they are at rest, yet relativity mentions something about invariant mass.
QUOTE
However, the Lorentz transformations (which, as can be seen in that same paper, theory of relativity cannot even derive
Lorentz transformations arise as elements of the symmetry group of Minkowski space-time, though they were originally derived as the symmetry transformations of Maxwell's equations and so Einstein did not have to rederive them in his paper, only make reference to the paper by Fitzgerald where they were derived. Also, it's a standard homework exercise early in relativity courses to work out the group of transformations which leave the flat space-time metric invariant.I would suggest you actually learn some special relativity before making wild claims like this. Did you not stop yourself and think "Shouldn't someone have noticed this very clear self contradiction in the last 100+ years?" or did you just think its some kind of mass conspiracy?
You may want to learn what the theory of relativity really is first and then offer unsolicited advice to others what to learn.
The fact which I am presenting invalidates altogether also the claim that theory of relativity derives mass-energy relationship, including the notions of 'rest mass' or 'relativistic mass'. It can clearly be seen that the crucial problem I am pointing out in §10 of Einstein’s 1905 paper exists well before any mention or "derivation" of said masses.
Also, this is not a forum on sociology and how public opinion is manipulated. Therefore, stick to the argument at hand.
The fact which I am presenting invalidates altogether also the claim that theory of relativity derives mass-energy relationship, including the notions of 'rest mass' or 'relativistic mass'. It can clearly be seen that the crucial problem I am pointing out in §10 of Einstein’s 1905 paper exists well before any mention or "derivation" of said masses.
Also, this is not a forum on sociology and how public opinion is manipulated. Therefore, stick to the argument at hand.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 17 2008, 08:10 PM)
Rest mass is the same in any frame. What you are describing is 'relativistic mass', which is dependent on the relative motion of frames. Hence 'relativistic'.
Dammit! Why was I not here for this?!
PS, omnibus - AN is right. You're getting confused with relativistic mass and rest (or invariant) mass. This is one of the reasons why I am on a crusade to ban the use of relativistic mass! It's unnecessarily confusing. The only mass that is really in relativity is invariant mass. Relativistic mass is more accurately described as a high energy effect that looks like an effective mass but is actually relativity modifying the equation for kinetic energy.
Dammit! Why was I not here for this?!
PS, omnibus - AN is right. You're getting confused with relativistic mass and rest (or invariant) mass. This is one of the reasons why I am on a crusade to ban the use of relativistic mass! It's unnecessarily confusing. The only mass that is really in relativity is invariant mass. Relativistic mass is more accurately described as a high energy effect that looks like an effective mass but is actually relativity modifying the equation for kinetic energy.
I am not confusing anything. Like I said, the concept of relativistic mass was to be derived well after the crucial error I'm pointing out. It's derivation depends on the lack of the mentioned contradiction. It isn't derived exactly becuse of the contradiction I presented. Theory of relativity has to go.
QUOTE (Omnibus+Oct 17 2008, 09:23 PM)
You may want to learn what the theory of relativity really is first and then offer unsolicited advice to others what to learn.
I've read the 1905 paper (in its English translation). I've read dozens of pop science books on relativity. I've read 'General Relativity' by Wald (well, much of it). I've read 'An Introduction to General Relativity' by Schutz. I've sat and passed exams on special relativity, general relativity, advanced general relativity, several kinds of relativistic field theory courses, all at Masters level, from the people who work with Hawking. Infact, I got a distinction in the black holes course Hawking used to lecture. The lecturer when I attended the course had done his PhD with Hawking and now works in the same department as him. Oh yeah. and I'm a 3rd year theoretical physics PhD student.
In Section 10 you can see that he talks about the kinetic energy of an electron being W = mc^2 ( gamma - 1). It is the difference between the relativistic mass, which is all the energy of the object, and it's rest mass, hence the -1.
Therefore the relativistic mass, mc^2 * gamma, is the mass of all energy in an object as well as it's energy by virtue of the mass it has when stationary in some given frame. Since gamma(0)=1, when the object isn't moving, it has no kinetic energy by that formula and the total energy is has comes from it's rest mass.
By the looks of it you are the one who didn't know much, if any, relativity. You fail to understand Einstein's work, you fail to realise those relations have all been experimentally checked and we have yet to find any error in them and you fail to realise you're a hypocrite for telling me not to give 'unsolicited advice to others' when you're the one who it making grand claims and telling people to not learn relativity.
Too bad it's such a damn accurate model of nature.
I've read the 1905 paper (in its English translation). I've read dozens of pop science books on relativity. I've read 'General Relativity' by Wald (well, much of it). I've read 'An Introduction to General Relativity' by Schutz. I've sat and passed exams on special relativity, general relativity, advanced general relativity, several kinds of relativistic field theory courses, all at Masters level, from the people who work with Hawking. Infact, I got a distinction in the black holes course Hawking used to lecture. The lecturer when I attended the course had done his PhD with Hawking and now works in the same department as him. Oh yeah. and I'm a 3rd year theoretical physics PhD student.
In Section 10 you can see that he talks about the kinetic energy of an electron being W = mc^2 ( gamma - 1). It is the difference between the relativistic mass, which is all the energy of the object, and it's rest mass, hence the -1.
Therefore the relativistic mass, mc^2 * gamma, is the mass of all energy in an object as well as it's energy by virtue of the mass it has when stationary in some given frame. Since gamma(0)=1, when the object isn't moving, it has no kinetic energy by that formula and the total energy is has comes from it's rest mass.
By the looks of it you are the one who didn't know much, if any, relativity. You fail to understand Einstein's work, you fail to realise those relations have all been experimentally checked and we have yet to find any error in them and you fail to realise you're a hypocrite for telling me not to give 'unsolicited advice to others' when you're the one who it making grand claims and telling people to not learn relativity.
Too bad it's such a damn accurate model of nature.
You may have read all these but you don’t really understand them, as is seen from your response. It still seems not to have come across to you how grave the problem I’m pointing out is. The contradiction I pointed out kills the theory of relativity without a trace—general theory, cosmology, string theories and all the rest built on its basis included. Case in point—take a look at this incoherent talk, indicating a clear misunderstanding of the matter:
This in no way explains away the obvious contradiction I pointed out that the first postulate requires the mass m to be represented as the same mass m in all systems while Lorentz transformations derive this mass to be beta^3m. Mass of one and the same body in one and the same system cannot be both m and beta^3m unless beta = 1, that is, unless theory of relativity is invalid. You cannot escape from that fact with a statement such as the quoted one.
Ah, and let me not forget—I’m not disputing the validity of the mass-energy relationship which exists trivially still in the classical Poynting vector. All I’ve shown is that the theory of relativity cannot derive this well-known years before Einstein mass-energy relationship due to a crucial contradiction which invalidates it in its entirety.
QUOTE
Therefore the relativistic mass, mc^2 * gamma, is the mass of all energy in an object as well as it's energy by virtue of the mass it has when stationary in some given frame. Since gamma(0)=1, when the object isn't moving, it has no kinetic energy by that formula and the total energy is has comes from it's rest mass.
This in no way explains away the obvious contradiction I pointed out that the first postulate requires the mass m to be represented as the same mass m in all systems while Lorentz transformations derive this mass to be beta^3m. Mass of one and the same body in one and the same system cannot be both m and beta^3m unless beta = 1, that is, unless theory of relativity is invalid. You cannot escape from that fact with a statement such as the quoted one.
Ah, and let me not forget—I’m not disputing the validity of the mass-energy relationship which exists trivially still in the classical Poynting vector. All I’ve shown is that the theory of relativity cannot derive this well-known years before Einstein mass-energy relationship due to a crucial contradiction which invalidates it in its entirety.
QUOTE
Too bad it's such a damn accurate model of nature.
No, it isn't. As I've pointed out Lorentz transformations derive that the mass m of an object in one system is represented by the mass beta^3m in another system. First postulate of the theory of relativity, however, requires that the mass m of that object be represented by the same mass m in any other system. This is a crucial contradiction which invalidates the theory because one and the same object in one and the same system cannot have at the same time mass m and mass beta^3m, unless beta = 1, that is, unless the theory of relativity is invalid.
The outcome from the theory requiring that one and the same object in one and the same system have at the same time mass m and mass beta^3m is nonsense, not "a damn accurate model of nature".
No experiment is necessary to detect that the theory of relativity leads to nonsense. All you need to do is take a look at §10 of Einstein’s 1905 paper and convince yourself that the contradiction in question really exists.
There have never been nor can there ever be experimental confirmations of the theory of relativity. Obvious nonsense such as the one under discussion can never be resolved through an experiment. Theory of relativity goes because of its own internal contradictions.
Hi Omnibus, AlphaNumeric, prometheus et al,
QUOTE (Einstein+)
In a 1948 letter to Lincoln Barnett Einstein wrote...
"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/(1-v2/c2)^1/2 of a body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass than 'the rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M, it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."
"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/(1-v2/c2)^1/2 of a body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass than 'the rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M, it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."
Here is another quote taken from a reference book in the field by JA Wheeler...
QUOTE (Wheeler+)
The preference for invariant mass is stressed and justified in the classic relativity textbook "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler who write,
"Ouch! The concept of 'relativistic mass' is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of space-time itself."
This old chestnut is a perennial. The equation of equivalence of mass and energy is "misleading" to say the least. What really exists is relativistic energy. There is some aspect of this phenomenon that could be measured as mass (such as the binding energy in nuclei, but that ultimately is due to relativistic motion in the nucleus.
The Concept of Mass in the Einstein Year - L.B. Okun 2006
This will help put "relativistic mass" into some perspective. It is referred to as "The pedagogical virus" in the abstract by Okun. If Einstein did not like it and Wheeler did not like it and everyone continues to misuse it then there is an argument to replace it with the "invariant mass"... the rest mass in the rest frame of the system. The"best" resource on this topic is in Lev B Okun's Article in Physics Today June 1989 titled "The Concept of Mass" but you need to pay money for it. Obviously this position is very extreme... what you really need to understand is what that relativistic mass actually means. See this extracted image...
e is mc squared?
There is a "common" use of this to indicate that mass is directly convertible into energy and visa versa according to the 'simple" equation E = mc². The concept of "rest mass" is "bad" while the concept of "rest energy" is good. This is because "mass" is an invariant in all systems while "energy" is a four-vector and depends on the system it is measured in. This is the relativistic principle where energy has no absolute frame of reference but is "relative" just like other measurables. According to one version of the equation E0 = mc² (eq1) (an accurate version of the famous equation) ... m is just the mass and is an invariant constant and E0 is the rest energy and the full relativistic equations describe a massless photon. According to the other version of the equation E = mc² (eq2) (the one many people use), m depends on energy (or velocity) and the photon has a mass m = E/c². This leads to inconsistency if the convention is not adhered to correctly (photons do not have mass).
In the paper... "Natura non facit saltus: An Uncommon Way to Relativistic Dynamics" B.Rothenstein, I.Zaharie, D. Păunescu said...
This quote doesn’t do the job of overturning my argument. Again, for the third time, the contradiction I’m pointing out is present well before any mention or “derivation” of concepts such as ‘rest’ mass or ‘relativistic’ mass or any such nonsense. This wouldn’t be nonsense if the contradiction pointed out by me weren’t there. It is there, though and you have to allow it to sink in. The contradiction in question is sufficient to invalidate the entire theory of relativity.
This quote doesn’t do the job of overturning my argument. Again, for the third time, the contradiction I’m pointing out is present well before any mention or “derivation” of concepts such as ‘rest’ mass or ‘relativistic’ mass or any such nonsense. This wouldn’t be nonsense if the contradiction pointed out by me weren’t there. It is there, though and you have to allow it to sink in. The contradiction in question is sufficient to invalidate the entire theory of relativity.
The preference for invariant mass is stressed and justified in the classic relativity textbook "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler who write,
"Ouch! The concept of 'relativistic mass' is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of space-time itself."
This quote is also inconsequential. Read carefully what I write and restrain from giving irrelevant quotes.
This also has absolutely nothing to do with the argument I am providing. The argument I provide invalidates the theory before any discussion of the above mentioned matters. The theory fails well before that. No such concepts as those mentioned in the quote can follow from a failed theory.
This also has absolutely nothing to do with the argument I am providing. The argument I provide invalidates the theory before any discussion of the above mentioned matters. The theory fails well before that. No such concepts as those mentioned in the quote can follow from a failed theory.
Abstract: The relativistic transformation equations for mass, momentum and energy are derived without using conservation laws but based on the idea that nature ensures a smooth transition from the physical properties of a tardyon to those of a photon.
[..]
Conclusion: Our approach to relativistic dynamics offers to the physicist the following list of alternatives: rest mass, relativistic mass, momentum, rest energy and energy, each with a well-defined physical meaning. Some physicists, especially those who enjoy "Gedanken experiments" prefer to use all of them. Others may avoid the use of the concept of relativistic mass whereas others avoid any concept of mass altogether.
Knowing that the equations derived above can be obtained from various scenarios which involve collisions between tardyons or between tardyons and photons and use conservation of momentum and energy (mass), we can be sure that using the equations derived above we obtain results in accordance with them. For those who avoid the concept of mass it is the conservation of momentum and energy that works, whereas for those who accept the concept of mass it is the conservation of momentum that leads to correct results. In the first case we say that energy transforms in terms of energy and in the second case we say that mass transforms in mass but we never say that mass transforms in energy and reverse.
Our approach informs the learner about the conventions used in teaching relativistic dynamics, being time saving and convincing him that physics is not a cluster of disconnected units of knowledge, in accordance with the aims claimed by physics educators.
Pure blabber. This doesn’t address the problem I’m pointing to one bit. At the stage where the internal contradiction I’m demonstrating there isn’t an inkling of ‘rest’ mass, ‘relativistic’ mass or what have you. On the contrary, such notions may come about only if there were no such internal contradiction. There is, however, a crucial internal contradiction and the theory must be abandoned before ever having the opportunity to explore such concepts.
The contradiction I’m presenting invalidates the theory in a categorical way and, as seen, that cannot be saved by quoting random passages.
What can be done now is to wrap up this thread with a definitive conclusion that the theory of relativity must be rejected because of at least one crucial internal contradiction discovered in it (one is enough for it to go; even Einstein agrees with that).
Of course, there may be some who would be curious to find out what’s the origin of that contradiction and, just for entertainment, try to observe numerous other blatant internal contradictions this failed so-called “theory” of relativity is built on.
There have never been nor can there ever be experimental confirmations of the theory of relativity. Obvious nonsense such as the one under discussion can never be resolved through an experiment. Theory of relativity goes because of its own internal contradictions.
Physicists have lost a lot of time and forces, studying the nonsense. They will disagree with you. Therefore politicians should forbid the relativity.
This is an ad hominem attack which serves as no argument to explain away the crucial flaw I demonstrated, invalidating the so-called “theory” of relativity.
"Ouch! The concept of 'relativistic mass' is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of space-time itself."
This old chestnut is a perennial. The equation of equivalence of mass and energy is "misleading" to say the least. What really exists is relativistic energy. There is some aspect of this phenomenon that could be measured as mass (such as the binding energy in nuclei, but that ultimately is due to relativistic motion in the nucleus.
The Concept of Mass in the Einstein Year - L.B. Okun 2006
This will help put "relativistic mass" into some perspective. It is referred to as "The pedagogical virus" in the abstract by Okun. If Einstein did not like it and Wheeler did not like it and everyone continues to misuse it then there is an argument to replace it with the "invariant mass"... the rest mass in the rest frame of the system. The"best" resource on this topic is in Lev B Okun's Article in Physics Today June 1989 titled "The Concept of Mass" but you need to pay money for it. Obviously this position is very extreme... what you really need to understand is what that relativistic mass actually means. See this extracted image...
e is mc squared?
There is a "common" use of this to indicate that mass is directly convertible into energy and visa versa according to the 'simple" equation E = mc². The concept of "rest mass" is "bad" while the concept of "rest energy" is good. This is because "mass" is an invariant in all systems while "energy" is a four-vector and depends on the system it is measured in. This is the relativistic principle where energy has no absolute frame of reference but is "relative" just like other measurables. According to one version of the equation E0 = mc² (eq1) (an accurate version of the famous equation) ... m is just the mass and is an invariant constant and E0 is the rest energy and the full relativistic equations describe a massless photon. According to the other version of the equation E = mc² (eq2) (the one many people use), m depends on energy (or velocity) and the photon has a mass m = E/c². This leads to inconsistency if the convention is not adhered to correctly (photons do not have mass).
In the paper... "Natura non facit saltus: An Uncommon Way to Relativistic Dynamics" B.Rothenstein, I.Zaharie, D. Păunescu said...
QUOTE (An Uncommon Way to Relativistic Dynamics:B.Rothenstein et al +)
Abstract: The relativistic transformation equations for mass, momentum and energy are derived without using conservation laws but based on the idea that nature ensures a smooth transition from the physical properties of a tardyon to those of a photon.
[..]
Conclusion: Our approach to relativistic dynamics offers to the physicist the following list of alternatives: rest mass, relativistic mass, momentum, rest energy and energy, each with a well-defined physical meaning. Some physicists, especially those who enjoy "Gedanken experiments" prefer to use all of them. Others may avoid the use of the concept of relativistic mass whereas others avoid any concept of mass altogether.
Knowing that the equations derived above can be obtained from various scenarios which involve collisions between tardyons or between tardyons and photons and use conservation of momentum and energy (mass), we can be sure that using the equations derived above we obtain results in accordance with them. For those who avoid the concept of mass it is the conservation of momentum and energy that works, whereas for those who accept the concept of mass it is the conservation of momentum that leads to correct results. In the first case we say that energy transforms in terms of energy and in the second case we say that mass transforms in mass but we never say that mass transforms in energy and reverse.
Our approach informs the learner about the conventions used in teaching relativistic dynamics, being time saving and convincing him that physics is not a cluster of disconnected units of knowledge, in accordance with the aims claimed by physics educators.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/5-2/IZ.pdf
[..]
Conclusion: Our approach to relativistic dynamics offers to the physicist the following list of alternatives: rest mass, relativistic mass, momentum, rest energy and energy, each with a well-defined physical meaning. Some physicists, especially those who enjoy "Gedanken experiments" prefer to use all of them. Others may avoid the use of the concept of relativistic mass whereas others avoid any concept of mass altogether.
Knowing that the equations derived above can be obtained from various scenarios which involve collisions between tardyons or between tardyons and photons and use conservation of momentum and energy (mass), we can be sure that using the equations derived above we obtain results in accordance with them. For those who avoid the concept of mass it is the conservation of momentum and energy that works, whereas for those who accept the concept of mass it is the conservation of momentum that leads to correct results. In the first case we say that energy transforms in terms of energy and in the second case we say that mass transforms in mass but we never say that mass transforms in energy and reverse.
Our approach informs the learner about the conventions used in teaching relativistic dynamics, being time saving and convincing him that physics is not a cluster of disconnected units of knowledge, in accordance with the aims claimed by physics educators.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/5-2/IZ.pdf
This advice is good advice and I hope this helps.
Cheers
Cheers
QUOTE
In a 1948 letter to Lincoln Barnett Einstein wrote...
"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/(1-v2/c2)^1/2 of a body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass than 'the rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M, it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."
"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/(1-v2/c2)^1/2 of a body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass than 'the rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M, it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."
This quote doesn’t do the job of overturning my argument. Again, for the third time, the contradiction I’m pointing out is present well before any mention or “derivation” of concepts such as ‘rest’ mass or ‘relativistic’ mass or any such nonsense. This wouldn’t be nonsense if the contradiction pointed out by me weren’t there. It is there, though and you have to allow it to sink in. The contradiction in question is sufficient to invalidate the entire theory of relativity.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In a 1948 letter to Lincoln Barnett Einstein wrote... "It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/(1-v2/c2)^1/2 of a body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass than 'the rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M, it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion." |
This quote doesn’t do the job of overturning my argument. Again, for the third time, the contradiction I’m pointing out is present well before any mention or “derivation” of concepts such as ‘rest’ mass or ‘relativistic’ mass or any such nonsense. This wouldn’t be nonsense if the contradiction pointed out by me weren’t there. It is there, though and you have to allow it to sink in. The contradiction in question is sufficient to invalidate the entire theory of relativity.
The preference for invariant mass is stressed and justified in the classic relativity textbook "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler who write,
"Ouch! The concept of 'relativistic mass' is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of space-time itself."
This quote is also inconsequential. Read carefully what I write and restrain from giving irrelevant quotes.
QUOTE
This old chestnut is a perennial. The equation of equivalence of mass and energy is "misleading" to say the least. What really exists is relativistic energy. There is some aspect of this phenomenon that could be measured as mass (such as the binding energy in nuclei, but that ultimately is due to relativistic motion in the nucleus.
The Concept of Mass in the Einstein Year - L.B. Okun 2006
This will help put "relativistic mass" into some perspective. It is referred to as "The pedagogical virus" in the abstract by Okun. If Einstein did not like it and Wheeler did not like it and everyone continues to misuse it then there is an argument to replace it with the "invariant mass"... the rest mass in the rest frame of the system. The"best" resource on this topic is in Lev B Okun's Article in Physics Today June 1989 titled "The Concept of Mass" but you need to pay money for it. Obviously this position is very extreme... what you really need to understand is what that relativistic mass actually means. See this extracted image...
e is mc squared?
There is a "common" use of this to indicate that mass is directly convertible into energy and visa versa according to the 'simple" equation E = mc². The concept of "rest mass" is "bad" while the concept of "rest energy" is good. This is because "mass" is an invariant in all systems while "energy" is a four-vector and depends on the system it is measured in. This is the relativistic principle where energy has no absolute frame of reference but is "relative" just like other measurables. According to one version of the equation E0 = mc² (eq1) (an accurate version of the famous equation) ... m is just the mass and is an invariant constant and E0 is the rest energy and the full relativistic equations describe a massless photon. According to the other version of the equation E = mc² (eq2) (the one many people use), m depends on energy (or velocity) and the photon has a mass m = E/c². This leads to inconsistency if the convention is not adhered to correctly (photons do not have mass).
The Concept of Mass in the Einstein Year - L.B. Okun 2006
This will help put "relativistic mass" into some perspective. It is referred to as "The pedagogical virus" in the abstract by Okun. If Einstein did not like it and Wheeler did not like it and everyone continues to misuse it then there is an argument to replace it with the "invariant mass"... the rest mass in the rest frame of the system. The"best" resource on this topic is in Lev B Okun's Article in Physics Today June 1989 titled "The Concept of Mass" but you need to pay money for it. Obviously this position is very extreme... what you really need to understand is what that relativistic mass actually means. See this extracted image...
e is mc squared?
There is a "common" use of this to indicate that mass is directly convertible into energy and visa versa according to the 'simple" equation E = mc². The concept of "rest mass" is "bad" while the concept of "rest energy" is good. This is because "mass" is an invariant in all systems while "energy" is a four-vector and depends on the system it is measured in. This is the relativistic principle where energy has no absolute frame of reference but is "relative" just like other measurables. According to one version of the equation E0 = mc² (eq1) (an accurate version of the famous equation) ... m is just the mass and is an invariant constant and E0 is the rest energy and the full relativistic equations describe a massless photon. According to the other version of the equation E = mc² (eq2) (the one many people use), m depends on energy (or velocity) and the photon has a mass m = E/c². This leads to inconsistency if the convention is not adhered to correctly (photons do not have mass).
This also has absolutely nothing to do with the argument I am providing. The argument I provide invalidates the theory before any discussion of the above mentioned matters. The theory fails well before that. No such concepts as those mentioned in the quote can follow from a failed theory.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This old chestnut is a perennial. The equation of equivalence of mass and energy is "misleading" to say the least. What really exists is relativistic energy. There is some aspect of this phenomenon that could be measured as mass (such as the binding energy in nuclei, but that ultimately is due to relativistic motion in the nucleus. The Concept of Mass in the Einstein Year - L.B. Okun 2006 This will help put "relativistic mass" into some perspective. It is referred to as "The pedagogical virus" in the abstract by Okun. If Einstein did not like it and Wheeler did not like it and everyone continues to misuse it then there is an argument to replace it with the "invariant mass"... the rest mass in the rest frame of the system. The"best" resource on this topic is in Lev B Okun's Article in Physics Today June 1989 titled "The Concept of Mass" but you need to pay money for it. Obviously this position is very extreme... what you really need to understand is what that relativistic mass actually means. See this extracted image... e is mc squared? There is a "common" use of this to indicate that mass is directly convertible into energy and visa versa according to the 'simple" equation E = mc². The concept of "rest mass" is "bad" while the concept of "rest energy" is good. This is because "mass" is an invariant in all systems while "energy" is a four-vector and depends on the system it is measured in. This is the relativistic principle where energy has no absolute frame of reference but is "relative" just like other measurables. According to one version of the equation E0 = mc² (eq1) (an accurate version of the famous equation) ... m is just the mass and is an invariant constant and E0 is the rest energy and the full relativistic equations describe a massless photon. According to the other version of the equation E = mc² (eq2) (the one many people use), m depends on energy (or velocity) and the photon has a mass m = E/c². This leads to inconsistency if the convention is not adhered to correctly (photons do not have mass). |
This also has absolutely nothing to do with the argument I am providing. The argument I provide invalidates the theory before any discussion of the above mentioned matters. The theory fails well before that. No such concepts as those mentioned in the quote can follow from a failed theory.
Abstract: The relativistic transformation equations for mass, momentum and energy are derived without using conservation laws but based on the idea that nature ensures a smooth transition from the physical properties of a tardyon to those of a photon.
[..]
Conclusion: Our approach to relativistic dynamics offers to the physicist the following list of alternatives: rest mass, relativistic mass, momentum, rest energy and energy, each with a well-defined physical meaning. Some physicists, especially those who enjoy "Gedanken experiments" prefer to use all of them. Others may avoid the use of the concept of relativistic mass whereas others avoid any concept of mass altogether.
Knowing that the equations derived above can be obtained from various scenarios which involve collisions between tardyons or between tardyons and photons and use conservation of momentum and energy (mass), we can be sure that using the equations derived above we obtain results in accordance with them. For those who avoid the concept of mass it is the conservation of momentum and energy that works, whereas for those who accept the concept of mass it is the conservation of momentum that leads to correct results. In the first case we say that energy transforms in terms of energy and in the second case we say that mass transforms in mass but we never say that mass transforms in energy and reverse.
Our approach informs the learner about the conventions used in teaching relativistic dynamics, being time saving and convincing him that physics is not a cluster of disconnected units of knowledge, in accordance with the aims claimed by physics educators.
Pure blabber. This doesn’t address the problem I’m pointing to one bit. At the stage where the internal contradiction I’m demonstrating there isn’t an inkling of ‘rest’ mass, ‘relativistic’ mass or what have you. On the contrary, such notions may come about only if there were no such internal contradiction. There is, however, a crucial internal contradiction and the theory must be abandoned before ever having the opportunity to explore such concepts.
The contradiction I’m presenting invalidates the theory in a categorical way and, as seen, that cannot be saved by quoting random passages.
What can be done now is to wrap up this thread with a definitive conclusion that the theory of relativity must be rejected because of at least one crucial internal contradiction discovered in it (one is enough for it to go; even Einstein agrees with that).
Of course, there may be some who would be curious to find out what’s the origin of that contradiction and, just for entertainment, try to observe numerous other blatant internal contradictions this failed so-called “theory” of relativity is built on.
QUOTE (Omnibus+Oct 17 2008, 10:43 PM)
There have never been nor can there ever be experimental confirmations of the theory of relativity. Obvious nonsense such as the one under discussion can never be resolved through an experiment. Theory of relativity goes because of its own internal contradictions.
Physicists have lost a lot of time and forces, studying the nonsense. They will disagree with you. Therefore politicians should forbid the relativity.
Even more time has been lost studying phlogiston, caloric theory, let alone Aristotelian geocentric system etc. However, there has never been such an obviously flawed "theory" as the theory of relativity gaining so much ground in the mainstream science. Even astrology or clairvoyance, as wrong as they are, aren't based on such blatant internal contradictions as the theory of relativity. It's OK for the physicists not to agree, as long as they provide argument. They can't and the recourse of many of them in trying to defend the indefensible is beyond commentary. A glimpse of it is sensed in this thread as well.
QUOTE (Omnibus+Oct 18 2008, 02:06 AM)
Of course, there may be some who would be curious to find out what’s the origin of that contradiction and, just for entertainment, try to observe numerous other blatant internal contradictions this failed so-called “theory” of relativity is built on.
This is just too typical of the greater spotted crank
i.e; despite zero comprehension of relativity, find audaciously stunning flaws in Einsteins work.
The only contradiction present here; is simply that this terminal idiot can actually mange to operate a PC.
This is just too typical of the greater spotted crank
i.e; despite zero comprehension of relativity, find audaciously stunning flaws in Einsteins work.
The only contradiction present here; is simply that this terminal idiot can actually mange to operate a PC.
QUOTE
This is just too typical of the greater spotted crank laugh.gif laugh.gif
i.e; despite zero comprehension of relativity, find audaciously stunning flaws in Einsteins work.
The only contradiction present here; is simply that this terminal idiot can actually mange to operate a PC.
i.e; despite zero comprehension of relativity, find audaciously stunning flaws in Einsteins work.
The only contradiction present here; is simply that this terminal idiot can actually mange to operate a PC.
This is an ad hominem attack which serves as no argument to explain away the crucial flaw I demonstrated, invalidating the so-called “theory” of relativity.
QUOTE (ASTERIX*+Oct 18 2008, 05:49 AM)
This is just too typical of the greater spotted crank
i.e; despite zero comprehension of relativity, find audaciously stunning flaws in Einsteins work.
The only contradiction present here; is simply that this terminal idiot can actually mange to operate a PC.
Only delirious person can understand the relativity.
i.e; despite zero comprehension of relativity, find audaciously stunning flaws in Einsteins work.
The only contradiction present here; is simply that this terminal idiot can actually mange to operate a PC.
Only delirious person can understand the relativity.
How to prove an idiot isnt an idiot to the idiot? Ppl who truely believe theorys are almost always this kind...
The special theory of relativity based on the Lorentz transformations is (to date) one of the greatest breakthroughs in physics ever. There are, however, subtleties which lead to myths one even find in text books. For example that the time on a clock moving relative to an observer actually ticks slower. It is simply not true: Consider two observers passing each other with speed v and at the instance of passing both observers set their stop watches to zero. Observer 1 will see observer 2 moving relative to him with a speed v, and vice versa: Thus after a the observers are a distance D from each other, observer 1 will measure a time t(1) on his/her the stop watch, so that D=vt(1). Similarly observer 2 will measure a time t(2) equal to D=vt(2). Thus t(1) MUST be equal to t(2).
Now why do we have to adjust the clocks on satellites when we communicate with them? Not because a moving clock is actually ticking slower but because from our reference frame it seems as if the clock is ticking slower. Just as a ball thrown straight up in the air on a train will seem to an observer on the platform to follow a parabolic path. I so wish that physicists are able to understand the simple fact. But I have given up! If physicists cannot understand the consequences of relativity theory why do we expect lay persons to understand it?
Now why do we have to adjust the clocks on satellites when we communicate with them? Not because a moving clock is actually ticking slower but because from our reference frame it seems as if the clock is ticking slower. Just as a ball thrown straight up in the air on a train will seem to an observer on the platform to follow a parabolic path. I so wish that physicists are able to understand the simple fact. But I have given up! If physicists cannot understand the consequences of relativity theory why do we expect lay persons to understand it?
johanfprins, the physicists (some of them, that is, the proponents of the ”theory” of relativity) will never agree that the outcome from the Lorentz transformations is only an illusion, which it really is, because if that’s accepted Physics has no use for the Lorentz transformations.
Now, although your conclusion that the Lorentz transformations lead to only seemingness of what happens in the other (moving) system is correct, the way you demonstrate it in this example will cause the adherents to accuse you of rookie jumping from system to system:
In order to prove that the Lorentz transformations are non-physical (although mathematically consistent) you have to stay in one system and prove it. It can easily be done quantitatively but I won’t go into that now although I’ll give an argument below which, although qualitative, is a definitive argument, demonstrating the physical (not mathematical—Lorentz transformations are consistent mathematically) invalidity of the Lorentz transformations. Lorentz transformations are a self-consistent mathematical construct with no physical meaning. Therefore, they have no place in Physics.
Your other example:
In order to prove that the Lorentz transformations are non-physical (although mathematically consistent) you have to stay in one system and prove it. It can easily be done quantitatively but I won’t go into that now although I’ll give an argument below which, although qualitative, is a definitive argument, demonstrating the physical (not mathematical—Lorentz transformations are consistent mathematically) invalidity of the Lorentz transformations. Lorentz transformations are a self-consistent mathematical construct with no physical meaning. Therefore, they have no place in Physics.
Your other example:
Just as a ball thrown straight up in the air on a train will seem to an observer on the platform to follow a parabolic path [while the ball in the train itself actually doesn’t follow such path—remark mine].
serves better to illustrate what Lorentz transformations really do. Indeed, one calculates by using Lorentz transformations that the time in the other (moving) frame goes slower but this is only an illusion about what really happens in the other frame. The rate of time in the other frame is as in any frame. Indeed, in a given frame the rate of time is unaffected by whether or not there are other systems moving with respect to it. Let alone that there may be myriads of systems moving with myriads of different velocities with respect to that given frame and if their motion is to affect its rate of time then time in that system will be of myriad rates.
Similar argument applies to length-contraction.
A given system, however, has only one unique time and a solid body in that system only has one unique length and isn’t of myriad lengths at the same time as follows from the Lorentz transformations if their outcome isn’t accepted as just an illusion.
Therefore, an observer in a given frame using Lorentz transformations is a false speaker for the observer in the other (moving) frame but is only entertaining an illusion about what happens in the other frame. Physics has no use for transformations which achieve only that seemingness and do not provide the real truth as to what the observer at rest with the other frame actually sees. Avid adherents very aggressively try to brush off that inevitable conclusion about the Lorentz transformations.
Also, mind you, time-dilation is a consequence of the Lorentz transformations only and has nothing to do with the “theory” of relativity. “Theory” of relativity is just a compilation of trivial errors and internal contradictions and therefore the consequence from it is just that it is a sheer nonsense unable to derive anything, let alone the Lorentz transformations. Thus, your statement that “The special theory of relativity [is] based on the Lorentz transformations” is incorrect. What Einstein has done in his 1905 is give in the introduction and in the two first paragraphs an expose of some childishly incorrect, internally contradictory nonsense, in no way deriving, despite the claim in the third paragraph, the Lorentz transformations in particular, and then move on to present several exercises for the application of these well known years before Einstein’s 1905 paper transformations. These exercises fail miserably, as I have already shown, which requires rejecting altogether the idea that the 1905 paper contains any scientific contribution at all. No part of it has any significance for Physics whatsoever.
Correct. That’s the mistake. Once that mistake is admitted everything connected with the Lorentz transformation goes, notwithstanding the satellite messaging and what not. Have no doubt that it isn’t because one’s calculations in his or her frame are real is what adherents have in mind when claiming the greatness of the conclusions from the Lorentz transformations. Any proponent in his right mind will vehemently oppose such an idea. If what you say is the case then the whole earthshaking qualities of the claims go down the drain and what remains is just an engineering application of empirical formulae. Engineering sciences use plethora of empirical formulae but never claim any earthshaking results due to any of them.
It should also be added that, most importantly, what will go if the Lorentz transformations are found to be useful only as mere adjustment formulae in satellite guidance, if at all, is the funding for wasteful projects such as the latest CERN project. Such projects will be cancelled immediately for the lack of scientific merit. That’s the greatest fear some of those physicists benefiting from such useless projects have and that’s why they are fighting back so vigorously despite the definitive arguments flying in their face.
The sensible part of society will feel relief, however, because if science rids itself from that plague many a talented people will find productive avenues to apply their qualities rather wasting them in the obvious dead end of general relativity, string theories, cosmology and the like.
Otherwise, the effect from the Lorentz transformations, if they indeed are adjustment formulae for satellite motion, are as much real as real are the ships in the horizon appearing not bigger than specs from the shore. Probably even a child won’t insist, however, that these ships are actually that small. Theory of perspective, however, is trivial and, like I said, this is by no means had in mind when the proponents claim groundbreaking discoveries using Lorentz transformations and they will fight such a suggestion till their last breath.
As for the “theory” of relativity, it should not at all be even mentioned in this context because, I repeat, it is just a compilation of trivial errors and internal contradiction. I showed one crucial such contradiction and after presenting this fatal fact about the “theory” of relativity it should not be mentioned any more in any scientific context whatsoever.
P.S. I didn’t get that: “I agree and has already been rejected by Annalen der Physik!” Can you cite the paper you have in mind?
Correct. That’s the mistake. Once that mistake is admitted everything connected with the Lorentz transformation goes, notwithstanding the satellite messaging and what not. Have no doubt that it is not’t because one’s calculations in his or her frame are real is what adherents have in mind when claiming the greatness of the conclusions from the Lorentz transformations. Any proponent in his right mind will vehemently oppose such an idea. If what you say is the case then the whole earthshaking qualities of the claims go down the drain and what remains is just an engineering application of empirical formulas. Engineering sciences use plethora of empirical formulas but never claim any earthshaking results due to any of them.
You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The Lorentz-transformations are the result of a deep-seated physical reality in our Universe. Before Einstein came along your arguments against the Lorentz transformations might have had merit. Einstein put the whole matter in perspective by postulating that an observer will always measure the same speed of light no matter at which speed he/himself is traveling relative to another reference frame. If this were not so, an astronaut moving at a very high speed relative to Earth would see light coming from the instruments in front of/him her to be blue shifted. The physical fact is that this does not happen whether the space capsule is sitting on the launch pad or moving with a very high speed away from Earth. Obviously if an observer on Earth could see the light coming from the instruments in the space capsule while it is moving away from Earth, he/she will see it red-shifted. This is so since this observer will measure the same light speed relative to Earth while the capsule is moving away from the Earth: i.e. the speed of the capsule AND the speed of light are now measured simultaneously relative to Earth. Therefore a Doppler-shift has to occur. This red-shift is physically real, even though it is not happening within the space capsule. In order to calculate this red shift one has to use the Lorentz transformations. The Lorentz transformations are thus not just adjustment formulas. They represent real physics just as the Galilean transformations represents real physics at low speeds. Without the latter transformation equations, Newton's laws would be null and void.
The problem at CERN is not the Lorentz transformations per se, but the manner in which it has been accommodated within quantum-electrodynamics.
My manuscript has not yet been published. The scientific Priesthood will not tolerate any proof that the clocks are not actually ticking at the same rate or that a rod actually does not shrink. My proof is not done by rubbishing the Lorentz transformations but by actually using them. The problem is that the scientific community has believed for 100 years that the clocks do actually tick at different rates and that a rod does actually shrink. Therefore any new insight is immediately censored. Like Joseph Goebbels reasoned: By repeating a falsehood it eventually becomes accepted as truth. Unfortunately this is not just valid amongst the general populace but also amongst the physicists. If you would like a confidential copy of my manuscript you are free to contact me through this website.
Now, although your conclusion that the Lorentz transformations lead to only seemingness of what happens in the other (moving) system is correct, the way you demonstrate it in this example will cause the adherents to accuse you of rookie jumping from system to system:
QUOTE
Consider two observers passing each other with speed v and at the instance of passing both observers set their stop watches to zero. Observer 1 will see observer 2 moving relative to him with a speed v, and vice versa: Thus after a the observers are a distance D from each other, observer 1 will measure a time t(1) on his/her the stop watch, so that D=vt(1). Similarly observer 2 will measure a time t(2) equal to D=vt(2). Thus t(1) MUST be equal to t(2).
In order to prove that the Lorentz transformations are non-physical (although mathematically consistent) you have to stay in one system and prove it. It can easily be done quantitatively but I won’t go into that now although I’ll give an argument below which, although qualitative, is a definitive argument, demonstrating the physical (not mathematical—Lorentz transformations are consistent mathematically) invalidity of the Lorentz transformations. Lorentz transformations are a self-consistent mathematical construct with no physical meaning. Therefore, they have no place in Physics.
Your other example:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Consider two observers passing each other with speed v and at the instance of passing both observers set their stop watches to zero. Observer 1 will see observer 2 moving relative to him with a speed v, and vice versa: Thus after a the observers are a distance D from each other, observer 1 will measure a time t(1) on his/her the stop watch, so that D=vt(1). Similarly observer 2 will measure a time t(2) equal to D=vt(2). Thus t(1) MUST be equal to t(2). |
In order to prove that the Lorentz transformations are non-physical (although mathematically consistent) you have to stay in one system and prove it. It can easily be done quantitatively but I won’t go into that now although I’ll give an argument below which, although qualitative, is a definitive argument, demonstrating the physical (not mathematical—Lorentz transformations are consistent mathematically) invalidity of the Lorentz transformations. Lorentz transformations are a self-consistent mathematical construct with no physical meaning. Therefore, they have no place in Physics.
Your other example:
Just as a ball thrown straight up in the air on a train will seem to an observer on the platform to follow a parabolic path [while the ball in the train itself actually doesn’t follow such path—remark mine].
serves better to illustrate what Lorentz transformations really do. Indeed, one calculates by using Lorentz transformations that the time in the other (moving) frame goes slower but this is only an illusion about what really happens in the other frame. The rate of time in the other frame is as in any frame. Indeed, in a given frame the rate of time is unaffected by whether or not there are other systems moving with respect to it. Let alone that there may be myriads of systems moving with myriads of different velocities with respect to that given frame and if their motion is to affect its rate of time then time in that system will be of myriad rates.
Similar argument applies to length-contraction.
A given system, however, has only one unique time and a solid body in that system only has one unique length and isn’t of myriad lengths at the same time as follows from the Lorentz transformations if their outcome isn’t accepted as just an illusion.
Therefore, an observer in a given frame using Lorentz transformations is a false speaker for the observer in the other (moving) frame but is only entertaining an illusion about what happens in the other frame. Physics has no use for transformations which achieve only that seemingness and do not provide the real truth as to what the observer at rest with the other frame actually sees. Avid adherents very aggressively try to brush off that inevitable conclusion about the Lorentz transformations.
Also, mind you, time-dilation is a consequence of the Lorentz transformations only and has nothing to do with the “theory” of relativity. “Theory” of relativity is just a compilation of trivial errors and internal contradictions and therefore the consequence from it is just that it is a sheer nonsense unable to derive anything, let alone the Lorentz transformations. Thus, your statement that “The special theory of relativity [is] based on the Lorentz transformations” is incorrect. What Einstein has done in his 1905 is give in the introduction and in the two first paragraphs an expose of some childishly incorrect, internally contradictory nonsense, in no way deriving, despite the claim in the third paragraph, the Lorentz transformations in particular, and then move on to present several exercises for the application of these well known years before Einstein’s 1905 paper transformations. These exercises fail miserably, as I have already shown, which requires rejecting altogether the idea that the 1905 paper contains any scientific contribution at all. No part of it has any significance for Physics whatsoever.
QUOTE (Omnibus+Oct 19 2008, 02:27 PM)
Hi Omnibus,
johanfprins, the physicists (some of them, that is, the proponents of the ”theory” of relativity) will never agree that the outcome from the Lorentz transformations is only an illusion, which it really is, because if that’s accepted Physics has no use for the Lorentz transformations.
You are correct here: but the fact that it is a "relativistic illusion" doe not make it "non-real" for the observer that experiences the "relativistic illusion". It is still part of physics that has to be taken into account when sending electro-magnetic messages between observers within reference frames moving relative to each other. The mistake that has been consistently made in physics is to assume that the "real relativistic illusion" experienced by him/her, is also real within the reference frame where the actual physics is happening.
Now, although your conclusion that the Lorentz transformations lead to only seemingness of what happens in the other (moving) system is correct, the way you demonstrate it in this example will cause the adherents to accuse you of rookie jumping from system to system:
I agree and has already been rejected by Annalen der Physik! No wonder physics is in trouble worldwide!
Lorentz transformations are a self-consistent mathematical construct with no physical meaning. Therefore, they have no place in Physics.
Here I disagree. It has physical meaning since it has to be taken into account physically.
Your other example:
serves better to illustrate what Lorentz transformations really do. Indeed, one calculates by using Lorentz transformations that the time in the other (moving) frame goes slower but this is only an illusion about what really happens in the other frame.
Correct: But is not an illusion within your reference frame. You have to take it in toi account "to balance the books".
The rate of time in the other frame is as in any frame.
Indeed, in a given frame the rate of time is unaffected by whether or not there are other systems moving with respect to it. Let alone that there may be myriads of systems moving with myriads of different velocities with respect to that given frame and if their motion is to affect its rate of time then time in that system will be of myriad rates.
Correct! But if you "look into" the other reference frames by communicating with them by means of electro-magnetic waves you have to adjust your equipment to take account of the "apparent" slowing down in their clocks: even though these clocks are Not actually slowing down within their own reference frames.
Similar argument applies to length-contraction.
Again correct: This is easy to prove: It is absolutely amazing that a genius like Einstein missed this fact.
Therefore, an observer in a given frame using Lorentz transformations is a false speaker for the observer in the other (moving) frame but is only entertaining an illusion about what happens in the other frame.
Again correct: But what is observed by him is actual reality, even though this is not happening in the other reference frame. Take a simpler example, an object at rest in the other reference frame is moving relative to the observers reference frame. Although this is a false perception of what is happening in the other reference frame it is a fact.
Physics has no use for transformations which achieve only that seemingness and do not provide the real truth as to what the observer at rest with the other frame actually sees.
Here we disagree: If what you say is correct then Newton's first law must be scrapped. Although a body with mass is stationary within its own reference frame it is not so relative to the myriad of reference frames moving relative to its own reference frame. This movement is not "untrue" but real.
Also, mind you, time-dilation is a consequence of the Lorentz transformations only and has nothing to do with the “theory” of relativity. “Theory” of relativity is just a compilation of trivial errors and internal contradictions and therefore the consequence from it is just that it is a sheer nonsense unable to derive anything, let alone the Lorentz transformations.
Here we disagree: The theory of relativity only transforms events happening within a stationary reference frame into what an observer will see when he/she moves relative to this stationary reference frame.
Thus, your statement that “The special theory of relativity [is] based on the Lorentz transformations” is incorrect. What Einstein has done in his 1905 is give in the introduction and in the two first paragraphs an expose of some childishly incorrect, internally contradictory nonsense, in no way deriving, despite the claim in the third paragraph, the Lorentz transformations in particular, and then move on to present several exercises for the application of these well known years before Einstein’s 1905 paper transformations. These exercises fail miserably, as I have already shown, which requires rejecting altogether the idea that the 1905 paper contains any scientific contribution at all. No part of it has any significance for Physics whatsoever.
I disagree here! See my remarks above. Nonetheless, I want to congratulate you for being so sharp that you picked up the misunderstandings (myths) about the special theory of relativity, which are still being bandied about. Nonetheless, the Lorentz transformations are correct and invaluable.
Hi Omnibus,
johanfprins, the physicists (some of them, that is, the proponents of the ”theory” of relativity) will never agree that the outcome from the Lorentz transformations is only an illusion, which it really is, because if that’s accepted Physics has no use for the Lorentz transformations.
You are correct here: but the fact that it is a "relativistic illusion" doe not make it "non-real" for the observer that experiences the "relativistic illusion". It is still part of physics that has to be taken into account when sending electro-magnetic messages between observers within reference frames moving relative to each other. The mistake that has been consistently made in physics is to assume that the "real relativistic illusion" experienced by him/her, is also real within the reference frame where the actual physics is happening.
Now, although your conclusion that the Lorentz transformations lead to only seemingness of what happens in the other (moving) system is correct, the way you demonstrate it in this example will cause the adherents to accuse you of rookie jumping from system to system:
I agree and has already been rejected by Annalen der Physik! No wonder physics is in trouble worldwide!
Lorentz transformations are a self-consistent mathematical construct with no physical meaning. Therefore, they have no place in Physics.
Here I disagree. It has physical meaning since it has to be taken into account physically.
Your other example:
serves better to illustrate what Lorentz transformations really do. Indeed, one calculates by using Lorentz transformations that the time in the other (moving) frame goes slower but this is only an illusion about what really happens in the other frame.
Correct: But is not an illusion within your reference frame. You have to take it in toi account "to balance the books".
The rate of time in the other frame is as in any frame.
Indeed, in a given frame the rate of time is unaffected by whether or not there are other systems moving with respect to it. Let alone that there may be myriads of systems moving with myriads of different velocities with respect to that given frame and if their motion is to affect its rate of time then time in that system will be of myriad rates.
Correct! But if you "look into" the other reference frames by communicating with them by means of electro-magnetic waves you have to adjust your equipment to take account of the "apparent" slowing down in their clocks: even though these clocks are Not actually slowing down within their own reference frames.
Similar argument applies to length-contraction.
Again correct: This is easy to prove: It is absolutely amazing that a genius like Einstein missed this fact.
Therefore, an observer in a given frame using Lorentz transformations is a false speaker for the observer in the other (moving) frame but is only entertaining an illusion about what happens in the other frame.
Again correct: But what is observed by him is actual reality, even though this is not happening in the other reference frame. Take a simpler example, an object at rest in the other reference frame is moving relative to the observers reference frame. Although this is a false perception of what is happening in the other reference frame it is a fact.
Physics has no use for transformations which achieve only that seemingness and do not provide the real truth as to what the observer at rest with the other frame actually sees.
Here we disagree: If what you say is correct then Newton's first law must be scrapped. Although a body with mass is stationary within its own reference frame it is not so relative to the myriad of reference frames moving relative to its own reference frame. This movement is not "untrue" but real.
Also, mind you, time-dilation is a consequence of the Lorentz transformations only and has nothing to do with the “theory” of relativity. “Theory” of relativity is just a compilation of trivial errors and internal contradictions and therefore the consequence from it is just that it is a sheer nonsense unable to derive anything, let alone the Lorentz transformations.
Here we disagree: The theory of relativity only transforms events happening within a stationary reference frame into what an observer will see when he/she moves relative to this stationary reference frame.
Thus, your statement that “The special theory of relativity [is] based on the Lorentz transformations” is incorrect. What Einstein has done in his 1905 is give in the introduction and in the two first paragraphs an expose of some childishly incorrect, internally contradictory nonsense, in no way deriving, despite the claim in the third paragraph, the Lorentz transformations in particular, and then move on to present several exercises for the application of these well known years before Einstein’s 1905 paper transformations. These exercises fail miserably, as I have already shown, which requires rejecting altogether the idea that the 1905 paper contains any scientific contribution at all. No part of it has any significance for Physics whatsoever.
I disagree here! See my remarks above. Nonetheless, I want to congratulate you for being so sharp that you picked up the misunderstandings (myths) about the special theory of relativity, which are still being bandied about. Nonetheless, the Lorentz transformations are correct and invaluable
johanfprins, the physicists (some of them, that is, the proponents of the ”theory” of relativity) will never agree that the outcome from the Lorentz transformations is only an illusion, which it really is, because if that’s accepted Physics has no use for the Lorentz transformations.
You are correct here: but the fact that it is a "relativistic illusion" doe not make it "non-real" for the observer that experiences the "relativistic illusion". It is still part of physics that has to be taken into account when sending electro-magnetic messages between observers within reference frames moving relative to each other. The mistake that has been consistently made in physics is to assume that the "real relativistic illusion" experienced by him/her, is also real within the reference frame where the actual physics is happening.
Now, although your conclusion that the Lorentz transformations lead to only seemingness of what happens in the other (moving) system is correct, the way you demonstrate it in this example will cause the adherents to accuse you of rookie jumping from system to system:
I agree and has already been rejected by Annalen der Physik! No wonder physics is in trouble worldwide!
Lorentz transformations are a self-consistent mathematical construct with no physical meaning. Therefore, they have no place in Physics.
Here I disagree. It has physical meaning since it has to be taken into account physically.
Your other example:
serves better to illustrate what Lorentz transformations really do. Indeed, one calculates by using Lorentz transformations that the time in the other (moving) frame goes slower but this is only an illusion about what really happens in the other frame.
Correct: But is not an illusion within your reference frame. You have to take it in toi account "to balance the books".
The rate of time in the other frame is as in any frame.
Indeed, in a given frame the rate of time is unaffected by whether or not there are other systems moving with respect to it. Let alone that there may be myriads of systems moving with myriads of different velocities with respect to that given frame and if their motion is to affect its rate of time then time in that system will be of myriad rates.
Correct! But if you "look into" the other reference frames by communicating with them by means of electro-magnetic waves you have to adjust your equipment to take account of the "apparent" slowing down in their clocks: even though these clocks are Not actually slowing down within their own reference frames.
Similar argument applies to length-contraction.
Again correct: This is easy to prove: It is absolutely amazing that a genius like Einstein missed this fact.
Therefore, an observer in a given frame using Lorentz transformations is a false speaker for the observer in the other (moving) frame but is only entertaining an illusion about what happens in the other frame.
Again correct: But what is observed by him is actual reality, even though this is not happening in the other reference frame. Take a simpler example, an object at rest in the other reference frame is moving relative to the observers reference frame. Although this is a false perception of what is happening in the other reference frame it is a fact.
Physics has no use for transformations which achieve only that seemingness and do not provide the real truth as to what the observer at rest with the other frame actually sees.
Here we disagree: If what you say is correct then Newton's first law must be scrapped. Although a body with mass is stationary within its own reference frame it is not so relative to the myriad of reference frames moving relative to its own reference frame. This movement is not "untrue" but real.
Also, mind you, time-dilation is a consequence of the Lorentz transformations only and has nothing to do with the “theory” of relativity. “Theory” of relativity is just a compilation of trivial errors and internal contradictions and therefore the consequence from it is just that it is a sheer nonsense unable to derive anything, let alone the Lorentz transformations.
Here we disagree: The theory of relativity only transforms events happening within a stationary reference frame into what an observer will see when he/she moves relative to this stationary reference frame.
Thus, your statement that “The special theory of relativity [is] based on the Lorentz transformations” is incorrect. What Einstein has done in his 1905 is give in the introduction and in the two first paragraphs an expose of some childishly incorrect, internally contradictory nonsense, in no way deriving, despite the claim in the third paragraph, the Lorentz transformations in particular, and then move on to present several exercises for the application of these well known years before Einstein’s 1905 paper transformations. These exercises fail miserably, as I have already shown, which requires rejecting altogether the idea that the 1905 paper contains any scientific contribution at all. No part of it has any significance for Physics whatsoever.
I disagree here! See my remarks above. Nonetheless, I want to congratulate you for being so sharp that you picked up the misunderstandings (myths) about the special theory of relativity, which are still being bandied about. Nonetheless, the Lorentz transformations are correct and invaluable.
Hi Omnibus,
johanfprins, the physicists (some of them, that is, the proponents of the ”theory” of relativity) will never agree that the outcome from the Lorentz transformations is only an illusion, which it really is, because if that’s accepted Physics has no use for the Lorentz transformations.
You are correct here: but the fact that it is a "relativistic illusion" doe not make it "non-real" for the observer that experiences the "relativistic illusion". It is still part of physics that has to be taken into account when sending electro-magnetic messages between observers within reference frames moving relative to each other. The mistake that has been consistently made in physics is to assume that the "real relativistic illusion" experienced by him/her, is also real within the reference frame where the actual physics is happening.
Now, although your conclusion that the Lorentz transformations lead to only seemingness of what happens in the other (moving) system is correct, the way you demonstrate it in this example will cause the adherents to accuse you of rookie jumping from system to system:
I agree and has already been rejected by Annalen der Physik! No wonder physics is in trouble worldwide!
Lorentz transformations are a self-consistent mathematical construct with no physical meaning. Therefore, they have no place in Physics.
Here I disagree. It has physical meaning since it has to be taken into account physically.
Your other example:
serves better to illustrate what Lorentz transformations really do. Indeed, one calculates by using Lorentz transformations that the time in the other (moving) frame goes slower but this is only an illusion about what really happens in the other frame.
Correct: But is not an illusion within your reference frame. You have to take it in toi account "to balance the books".
The rate of time in the other frame is as in any frame.
Indeed, in a given frame the rate of time is unaffected by whether or not there are other systems moving with respect to it. Let alone that there may be myriads of systems moving with myriads of different velocities with respect to that given frame and if their motion is to affect its rate of time then time in that system will be of myriad rates.
Correct! But if you "look into" the other reference frames by communicating with them by means of electro-magnetic waves you have to adjust your equipment to take account of the "apparent" slowing down in their clocks: even though these clocks are Not actually slowing down within their own reference frames.
Similar argument applies to length-contraction.
Again correct: This is easy to prove: It is absolutely amazing that a genius like Einstein missed this fact.
Therefore, an observer in a given frame using Lorentz transformations is a false speaker for the observer in the other (moving) frame but is only entertaining an illusion about what happens in the other frame.
Again correct: But what is observed by him is actual reality, even though this is not happening in the other reference frame. Take a simpler example, an object at rest in the other reference frame is moving relative to the observers reference frame. Although this is a false perception of what is happening in the other reference frame it is a fact.
Physics has no use for transformations which achieve only that seemingness and do not provide the real truth as to what the observer at rest with the other frame actually sees.
Here we disagree: If what you say is correct then Newton's first law must be scrapped. Although a body with mass is stationary within its own reference frame it is not so relative to the myriad of reference frames moving relative to its own reference frame. This movement is not "untrue" but real.
Also, mind you, time-dilation is a consequence of the Lorentz transformations only and has nothing to do with the “theory” of relativity. “Theory” of relativity is just a compilation of trivial errors and internal contradictions and therefore the consequence from it is just that it is a sheer nonsense unable to derive anything, let alone the Lorentz transformations.
Here we disagree: The theory of relativity only transforms events happening within a stationary reference frame into what an observer will see when he/she moves relative to this stationary reference frame.
Thus, your statement that “The special theory of relativity [is] based on the Lorentz transformations” is incorrect. What Einstein has done in his 1905 is give in the introduction and in the two first paragraphs an expose of some childishly incorrect, internally contradictory nonsense, in no way deriving, despite the claim in the third paragraph, the Lorentz transformations in particular, and then move on to present several exercises for the application of these well known years before Einstein’s 1905 paper transformations. These exercises fail miserably, as I have already shown, which requires rejecting altogether the idea that the 1905 paper contains any scientific contribution at all. No part of it has any significance for Physics whatsoever.
I disagree here! See my remarks above. Nonetheless, I want to congratulate you for being so sharp that you picked up the misunderstandings (myths) about the special theory of relativity, which are still being bandied about. Nonetheless, the Lorentz transformations are correct and invaluable
QUOTE
You are correct here: but the fact that it is a "relativistic illusion" doe not make it "non-real" for the observer that experiences the "relativistic illusion". It is still part of physics that has to be taken into account when sending electro-magnetic messages between observers within reference frames moving relative to each other. The mistake that has been consistently made in physics is to assume that the "real relativistic illusion" experienced by him/her, is also real within the reference frame where the actual physics is happening.
Correct. That’s the mistake. Once that mistake is admitted everything connected with the Lorentz transformation goes, notwithstanding the satellite messaging and what not. Have no doubt that it isn’t because one’s calculations in his or her frame are real is what adherents have in mind when claiming the greatness of the conclusions from the Lorentz transformations. Any proponent in his right mind will vehemently oppose such an idea. If what you say is the case then the whole earthshaking qualities of the claims go down the drain and what remains is just an engineering application of empirical formulae. Engineering sciences use plethora of empirical formulae but never claim any earthshaking results due to any of them.
It should also be added that, most importantly, what will go if the Lorentz transformations are found to be useful only as mere adjustment formulae in satellite guidance, if at all, is the funding for wasteful projects such as the latest CERN project. Such projects will be cancelled immediately for the lack of scientific merit. That’s the greatest fear some of those physicists benefiting from such useless projects have and that’s why they are fighting back so vigorously despite the definitive arguments flying in their face.
The sensible part of society will feel relief, however, because if science rids itself from that plague many a talented people will find productive avenues to apply their qualities rather wasting them in the obvious dead end of general relativity, string theories, cosmology and the like.
Otherwise, the effect from the Lorentz transformations, if they indeed are adjustment formulae for satellite motion, are as much real as real are the ships in the horizon appearing not bigger than specs from the shore. Probably even a child won’t insist, however, that these ships are actually that small. Theory of perspective, however, is trivial and, like I said, this is by no means had in mind when the proponents claim groundbreaking discoveries using Lorentz transformations and they will fight such a suggestion till their last breath.
As for the “theory” of relativity, it should not at all be even mentioned in this context because, I repeat, it is just a compilation of trivial errors and internal contradiction. I showed one crucial such contradiction and after presenting this fatal fact about the “theory” of relativity it should not be mentioned any more in any scientific context whatsoever.
P.S. I didn’t get that: “I agree and has already been rejected by Annalen der Physik!” Can you cite the paper you have in mind?
QUOTE (Omnibus+Oct 19 2008, 06:19 PM)
Correct. That’s the mistake. Once that mistake is admitted everything connected with the Lorentz transformation goes, notwithstanding the satellite messaging and what not. Have no doubt that it is not’t because one’s calculations in his or her frame are real is what adherents have in mind when claiming the greatness of the conclusions from the Lorentz transformations. Any proponent in his right mind will vehemently oppose such an idea. If what you say is the case then the whole earthshaking qualities of the claims go down the drain and what remains is just an engineering application of empirical formulas. Engineering sciences use plethora of empirical formulas but never claim any earthshaking results due to any of them.
You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The Lorentz-transformations are the result of a deep-seated physical reality in our Universe. Before Einstein came along your arguments against the Lorentz transformations might have had merit. Einstein put the whole matter in perspective by postulating that an observer will always measure the same speed of light no matter at which speed he/himself is traveling relative to another reference frame. If this were not so, an astronaut moving at a very high speed relative to Earth would see light coming from the instruments in front of/him her to be blue shifted. The physical fact is that this does not happen whether the space capsule is sitting on the launch pad or moving with a very high speed away from Earth. Obviously if an observer on Earth could see the light coming from the instruments in the space capsule while it is moving away from Earth, he/she will see it red-shifted. This is so since this observer will measure the same light speed relative to Earth while the capsule is moving away from the Earth: i.e. the speed of the capsule AND the speed of light are now measured simultaneously relative to Earth. Therefore a Doppler-shift has to occur. This red-shift is physically real, even though it is not happening within the space capsule. In order to calculate this red shift one has to use the Lorentz transformations. The Lorentz transformations are thus not just adjustment formulas. They represent real physics just as the Galilean transformations represents real physics at low speeds. Without the latter transformation equations, Newton's laws would be null and void.
The problem at CERN is not the Lorentz transformations per se, but the manner in which it has been accommodated within quantum-electrodynamics.
My manuscript has not yet been published. The scientific Priesthood will not tolerate any proof that the clocks are not actually ticking at the same rate or that a rod actually does not shrink. My proof is not done by rubbishing the Lorentz transformations but by actually using them. The problem is that the scientific community has believed for 100 years that the clocks do actually tick at different rates and that a rod does actually shrink. Therefore any new insight is immediately censored. Like Joseph Goebbels reasoned: By repeating a falsehood it eventually becomes accepted as truth. Unfortunately this is not just valid amongst the general populace but also amongst the physicists. If you would like a confidential copy of my manuscript you are free to contact me through this website.
johanfprins, after the argument I provided with which this thread started, there is no need to discuss Einstein's theory of relativity any further because it is now definitively proved that it is invalid. Recall, Einstein himself had required one argument, not 100, to disprove his theory. Once a crucial argument such as the one I gave invalidates the theory all other aspects of it (connected, say, with Doppler-shift, mentioned by you) are gone. The invalidity of any claim, other than the one I disproved, made by the said "theory" may also be demonstrated but it isn't even necessary. Recall, one argument, not 100, are needed to disprove the theory.
As for the Lorentz transformations (having no connection with the theory of relativity), they are only valid mathematical constructs, as I said already, and as such are internally consistent without a doubt. They, however, give an incorrect physical picture of what the reality is for an observer at rest with the moving system. Therefore, they have no place in Physics.
P.S Forgot to ask you. Is the manuscript you mention in your last post the paper in Annalen der Physik you referred to in your previous post?
As for the Lorentz transformations (having no connection with the theory of relativity), they are only valid mathematical constructs, as I said already, and as such are internally consistent without a doubt. They, however, give an incorrect physical picture of what the reality is for an observer at rest with the moving system. Therefore, they have no place in Physics.
P.S Forgot to ask you. Is the manuscript you mention in your last post the paper in Annalen der Physik you referred to in your previous post?
QUOTE (Fairy+Oct 18 2008, 08:29 PM)
Just take more medicine
Nobody will not voluntaryly take Fairy medicine. People forcedly study the false theory of relativity . When the teacher forces a student to understand a lie the student turns into liar.
Nobody will not voluntaryly take Fairy medicine. People forcedly study the false theory of relativity . When the teacher forces a student to understand a lie the student turns into liar.
QUOTE (Omnibus+Oct 20 2008, 02:18 PM)
conference, after the argument I provided with which this thread started, there is no need to discuss Einstein's theory of relativity any further because it is now definitively proved that it is invalid. Recall, Einstein himself had required one argument, not 100, to disprove his theory. Once a crucial argument such as the one I gave invalidates the theory all other aspects of it (connected, say, with Doppler-shift, mentioned by you) are gone. The invalidity of any claim, other than the one I disproved, made by the said "theory" may also be demonstrated but it isn't even necessary. Recall, one argument, not 100, are needed to disprove the theory.
You have NOT disproved Einstein's theory. All you have "disproved" are wrong derivations and conclusions from his theory. In this respect you are just as wrong as the Priesthood on relativity is. Your argument at the beginning of this thread has NOT disproved Einstein. Please don't be just as stupid as the guys above who called you a crank!!
You have NOT disproved Einstein's theory. All you have "disproved" are wrong derivations and conclusions from his theory. In this respect you are just as wrong as the Priesthood on relativity is. Your argument at the beginning of this thread has NOT disproved Einstein. Please don't be just as stupid as the guys above who called you a crank!!
QUOTE (Omnibus+Oct 20 2008, 02:18 PM)
As for the Lorentz transformations (having no connection with the theory of relativity), they are only valid mathematical constructs, as I said already, and as such are internally consistent without a doubt. They, however, give an incorrect physical picture of what the reality is for an observer at rest with the moving system. Therefore, they have no place in Physics.
They are not incorrect mathematical constructs. The fact that an observer at rest within a moving system experiences different insights than an observer moving relative to this system is exactly the reason why Galileo was persecuted. You are reasoning like a person believing in a "flat stationary Earth"!
They are not incorrect mathematical constructs. The fact that an observer at rest within a moving system experiences different insights than an observer moving relative to this system is exactly the reason why Galileo was persecuted. You are reasoning like a person believing in a "flat stationary Earth"!
QUOTE (Omnibus+Oct 20 2008, 02:18 PM)
P.S Forgot to ask you. Is the manuscript you mention in your last post the paper in Annalen der Physik you referred to in your previous post?
Yes it is: But it has not been published because the editor of Annalen der Physik knows even less about physics than you do!
Yes it is: But it has not been published because the editor of Annalen der Physik knows even less about physics than you do!
QUOTE (johanfprins+Oct 20 2008, 11:09 AM)
The problem is that the scientific community has believed for 100 years that the clocks do actually tick at different rates
You do realise experiments show they do? Right? Both due to relative motion and position in gravitational fields.
And it's my experience that every person, like johanfprins, who tries to talk about clock tick rates doesn't know how to do the maths of relativity to check the precise predictions. They just wave their arms and think because they've read Wikipedia they understand it all.
100 years of experiments tell us that even if relativity is wrong, it's correct to parts per billion. As such it will never be 'thrown out', just like Newtonian physics wasn't thrown out when relativity was shown to be superior to it. It'll just be seen as an effective theory of some high level, more accurate, theory. Just as Newtonian physics is from relativity. As electromagnetism is from electrodynamics, which is itself an effective theory of quantum electrodynamics, which is itself an effective theory of electroweak theory, which is itself an effective theory of some as yet unknown quantum model.
You do realise experiments show they do? Right? Both due to relative motion and position in gravitational fields.
And it's my experience that every person, like johanfprins, who tries to talk about clock tick rates doesn't know how to do the maths of relativity to check the precise predictions. They just wave their arms and think because they've read Wikipedia they understand it all.
100 years of experiments tell us that even if relativity is wrong, it's correct to parts per billion. As such it will never be 'thrown out', just like Newtonian physics wasn't thrown out when relativity was shown to be superior to it. It'll just be seen as an effective theory of some high level, more accurate, theory. Just as Newtonian physics is from relativity. As electromagnetism is from electrodynamics, which is itself an effective theory of quantum electrodynamics, which is itself an effective theory of electroweak theory, which is itself an effective theory of some as yet unknown quantum model.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 20 2008, 05:13 PM)
You do realize experiments show they do? Right? Both due to relative motion and position in gravitational fields.
The experiments which had been done by flying clocks on an aeroplane are very controversial and WRONG. The fact that the clocks have to be adjusted on satellites does NOT prove that time actually ticks slower on the satellite, It only proves that from the a framework attached to Earth it "seems' as if the clock is ticking slower.
The experiments which had been done by flying clocks on an aeroplane are very controversial and WRONG. The fact that the clocks have to be adjusted on satellites does NOT prove that time actually ticks slower on the satellite, It only proves that from the a framework attached to Earth it "seems' as if the clock is ticking slower.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 20 2008, 05:13 PM)
And it's my experience that every person, like johanfprins, who tries to talk about clock tick rates doesn't know how to do the maths of relativity to check the precise predictions. They just wave their arms and think because they've read Wikipedia they understand it all.
Hi "real physicist", I challenge you to an open debate in which I will prove by rigid mathematics, using the Lorentz transformations, that the clocks actually do tick at the same rate. No Wikipedia involved!
No they don’t. There is no experiment nor can there ever be any which would prove the clocks in different systems tick at different rates. Don’t even bother to waste time mentioning flawed experiments such as these of Hafele and Keating or the like because the definitive argument I already presened conclusively proves that claims such as time-dilation are impossible to be real.
No they don’t. There is no experiment nor can there ever be any which would prove the clocks in different systems tick at different rates. Don’t even bother to waste time mentioning flawed experiments such as these of Hafele and Keating or the like because the definitive argument I already presened conclusively proves that claims such as time-dilation are impossible to be real.
100 years of experiments tell us that even if relativity is wrong, it's correct to parts per billion.
Not at all. Theory of relativity is wrong in its entirety, as I have already shown. No part of it has any significance for Physics and there cannot ever be an experiment to resolve the internal contradictions it is based on.
If it isn’t thrown out it will be because of reasons having nothing to do with Science.
If it isn’t thrown out it will be because of reasons having nothing to do with Science.
just like Newtonian physics wasn't thrown out when relativity was shown to be superior to it.
Not so. Even the so-called “relativity” (meaning Einstein’s relativity) recognizes the validity of the Newtonian physics in the stationary system. For the rest of the claims of that so-called “theory" of relativity I already showed a conclusive argument, invalidating it in its entirety.
Now, after the theory of relativity has been proven to be invalid altogether, any insistence there is anything to it puts the advocate in the clumsy position of defending a proven falsity.
johanfprins, in saying this you seem to be forgetting my argument which conclusively proves the invalidity of the theory of relativity in its entirety. Why are you forgetting that argument?
How come? I showed one crucial internal contradiction invalidating that “theory” without a trace. Why are you ignoring it?
How come? I showed one crucial internal contradiction invalidating that “theory” without a trace. Why are you ignoring it?
For the rest of the claims of that so-called “theory" of relativity I already showed a conclusive argument, invalidating it in its entirety.[/QOUTE]
You have not! Which conclusive argument? I have not seen a single one in this thread except that you have realized that the clocks must in actual reality tick at the same rate. This does not invalidate the Lorentz transformations and/or Einstein's conclusion that the same light speed c will be measured by any observer no matter at what speed he/she moves relative to other observers.
Here it is—this is the argument I gave at the start of this thread:
As for the physical invalidity of the Lorentz transformations you’re incorrectly quoting me in saying that my only argument was none other than “except that you have realized that the clocks must in actual reality tick at the same rate.”
You’ve missed to read the full quote on page 2:
As for the physical invalidity of the Lorentz transformations you’re incorrectly quoting me in saying that my only argument was none other than “except that you have realized that the clocks must in actual reality tick at the same rate.”
You’ve missed to read the full quote on page 2:
Indeed, one calculates by using Lorentz transformations that the time in the other (moving) frame goes slower but this is only an illusion about what really happens in the other frame. The rate of time in the other frame is as in any frame. Indeed, in a given frame the rate of time is unaffected by whether or not there are other systems moving with respect to it. Let alone that there may be myriads of systems moving with myriads of different velocities with respect to that given frame and if their motion is to affect its rate of time then time in that system will be of myriad rates.
Similar argument applies to length-contraction.
A given system, however, has only one unique time and a solid body in that system only has one unique length and isn’t of myriad lengths at the same time as follows from the Lorentz transformations if their outcome isn’t accepted as just an illusion.
Therefore, an observer in a given frame using Lorentz transformations is a false speaker for the observer in the other (moving) frame but is only entertaining an illusion about what happens in the other frame. Physics has no use for transformations which achieve only that seemingness and do not provide the real truth as to what the observer at rest with the other frame actually sees. Avid adherents very aggressively try to brush off that inevitable conclusion about the Lorentz transformations.
Also, mind you, time-dilation is a consequence of the Lorentz transformations only and has nothing to do with the “theory” of relativity. “Theory” of relativity is just a compilation of trivial errors and internal contradictions and therefore the consequence from it is just that it is a sheer nonsense unable to derive anything, let alone the Lorentz transformations. Thus, your statement that “The special theory of relativity [is] based on the Lorentz transformations” is incorrect. What Einstein has done in his 1905 is give in the introduction and in the two first paragraphs an expose of some childishly incorrect, internally contradictory nonsense, in no way deriving, despite the claim in the third paragraph, the Lorentz transformations in particular, and then move on to present several exercises for the application of these well known years before Einstein’s 1905 paper transformations. These exercises fail miserably, as I have already shown, which requires rejecting altogether the idea that the 1905 paper contains any scientific contribution at all. No part of it has any significance for Physics whatsoever.
No, it hasn’t been answered. You don’t answer it as well. Because you don’t tell us how is it possible Einstein to be right when trying to demonstrate that one and the same body in the same system, at the same state of motion has both mass m and mass beta^3m.
Focus on this question and don’t distract yourself with “ground state free-energy”, “rest mass”, “jumping from a train” “Galileo, Newton and Einstein” and everything else not related to the question as to why is it that m and beta^3m relating to the same body in the same system at the same state of motion are one and the same quantity?
The only reason the Earth observer sees the doppler RED shifted light is because THAT 'stationary' observer is not moving forward along with the emitter/ship like the astronaut is, and therefore is NOT 'cancelling' the 'emitter redshift' with 'receiver blueshift' as the astronaut's eyes on board are effectively doing.
Hence the light seems 'counteracted normal' to the forward-co-moving astronaut; but 'uncounteracted redshifted' to the 'stationary' Earth observer.
I hope I explained that OK in my hurry to be off.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Yes I agree my example was not very well explained: What I intended to explain was that if light speed is not measured to be the same relative to the capsule as it is measured on Earth, the astronaut would be experiencing a higher light speed on the space vehicle than c; Just as one would experience water waves to be faster when you move into them. Thanks for pointing out my incomplete argument!
Your explanation is correct on the space ship but not totally correct when compared to Earth: If the light speed on the space vehicle was referenced to Earth, instead of the space capsule, the astronaut will see a change in colour (as compared to Earth) since the frequencies of the light being emitted by the instruments stay the same; but the light is moving towards the astronaut faster than c. He would then be moving into the light speed thus effectively increasing it relative to himself. This is why light speed must have the same value c when measured by any observer no matter what speed he/she is moving at relative to other observers. If not, one would become unable to see your instruments when traveling at very high speeds relative to Earth: Except if you have X-ray eyes like Superman!
100 years of experiments tell us that even if relativity is wrong, it's correct to parts per billion.
The theory of relativity contradicts the theory of relativity.Experiments prove this.
You don't. That's for sure.
Hi "real physicist", I challenge you to an open debate in which I will prove by rigid mathematics, using the Lorentz transformations, that the clocks actually do tick at the same rate. No Wikipedia involved!
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 20 2008, 05:13 PM)
100 years of experiments tell us that even if relativity is wrong, it's correct to parts per billion. As such it will never be 'thrown out', just like Newtonian physics wasn't thrown out when relativity was shown to be superior to it.
Correct: I am not attacking the special theory of relativity: All I am claiming is that the derivation of time-dilation does not imply that the clocks ACTUALLY tick at different rates. Furthermore, Einstein's derivation of length-contraction violates the Lorentz transformation. I am willing to meet you face-to face "actual physicist"!!! If you are REALLY ONE!!!
Correct: I am not attacking the special theory of relativity: All I am claiming is that the derivation of time-dilation does not imply that the clocks ACTUALLY tick at different rates. Furthermore, Einstein's derivation of length-contraction violates the Lorentz transformation. I am willing to meet you face-to face "actual physicist"!!! If you are REALLY ONE!!!
QUOTE
You do realise experiments show they do? Right? Both due to relative motion and position in gravitational fields.
No they don’t. There is no experiment nor can there ever be any which would prove the clocks in different systems tick at different rates. Don’t even bother to waste time mentioning flawed experiments such as these of Hafele and Keating or the like because the definitive argument I already presened conclusively proves that claims such as time-dilation are impossible to be real.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You do realise experiments show they do? Right? Both due to relative motion and position in gravitational fields. |
No they don’t. There is no experiment nor can there ever be any which would prove the clocks in different systems tick at different rates. Don’t even bother to waste time mentioning flawed experiments such as these of Hafele and Keating or the like because the definitive argument I already presened conclusively proves that claims such as time-dilation are impossible to be real.
100 years of experiments tell us that even if relativity is wrong, it's correct to parts per billion.
Not at all. Theory of relativity is wrong in its entirety, as I have already shown. No part of it has any significance for Physics and there cannot ever be an experiment to resolve the internal contradictions it is based on.
QUOTE
As such it will never be 'thrown out'
If it isn’t thrown out it will be because of reasons having nothing to do with Science.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As such it will never be 'thrown out' |
If it isn’t thrown out it will be because of reasons having nothing to do with Science.
just like Newtonian physics wasn't thrown out when relativity was shown to be superior to it.
Not so. Even the so-called “relativity” (meaning Einstein’s relativity) recognizes the validity of the Newtonian physics in the stationary system. For the rest of the claims of that so-called “theory" of relativity I already showed a conclusive argument, invalidating it in its entirety.
Now, after the theory of relativity has been proven to be invalid altogether, any insistence there is anything to it puts the advocate in the clumsy position of defending a proven falsity.
QUOTE
Correct: I am not attacking the special theory of relativity
johanfprins, in saying this you seem to be forgetting my argument which conclusively proves the invalidity of the theory of relativity in its entirety. Why are you forgetting that argument?
[QUOTE=Omnibus,Oct 20 2008, 05:42 PM]
No they don’t. There is no experiment nor can there ever be any which would prove the clocks in different systems tick at different rates. Don’t even bother to waste time mentioning flawed experiments such as these of Hafele and Keating or the like because the definitive argument I already presened conclusively proves that claims such as time-dilation are impossible to be real.[/QOUTE]
It is inherent in the Universe that it is 14 billion years old: Also at its edges which are receding from us at a speed near light speed. This means that since the Big Bang, the clocks on those receding stars must have been ricking at the same rate as a clock on the sun. If not, the Universe relative to those receding stars must be MUCH younger than it actually is relative to Earth: Pure BS
[QUOTE=Omnibus,Oct 20 2008, 05:42 PM]
Not at all. Theory of relativity is wrong in its entirety, as I have already shown. No part of it has any significance for Physics and there cannot ever be an experiment to resolve the internal contradictions it is based on.[/QOUTE]
Wrong: There are no internal contradictions in the special theory of relativity.
[QUOTE=Omnibus,Oct 20 2008, 05:42 PM] For the rest of the claims of that so-called “theory" of relativity I already showed a conclusive argument, invalidating it in its entirety.[/QOUTE]
You have not! Which conclusive argument? I have not seen a single one in this thread except that you have realized that the clocks must in actual reality tick at the same rate. This does not invalidate the Lorentz transformations and/or Einstein's conclusion that the same light speed c will be measured by any observer no matter at what speed he/she moves relative to other observers.
No they don’t. There is no experiment nor can there ever be any which would prove the clocks in different systems tick at different rates. Don’t even bother to waste time mentioning flawed experiments such as these of Hafele and Keating or the like because the definitive argument I already presened conclusively proves that claims such as time-dilation are impossible to be real.[/QOUTE]
It is inherent in the Universe that it is 14 billion years old: Also at its edges which are receding from us at a speed near light speed. This means that since the Big Bang, the clocks on those receding stars must have been ricking at the same rate as a clock on the sun. If not, the Universe relative to those receding stars must be MUCH younger than it actually is relative to Earth: Pure BS
[QUOTE=Omnibus,Oct 20 2008, 05:42 PM]
Not at all. Theory of relativity is wrong in its entirety, as I have already shown. No part of it has any significance for Physics and there cannot ever be an experiment to resolve the internal contradictions it is based on.[/QOUTE]
Wrong: There are no internal contradictions in the special theory of relativity.
[QUOTE=Omnibus,Oct 20 2008, 05:42 PM] For the rest of the claims of that so-called “theory" of relativity I already showed a conclusive argument, invalidating it in its entirety.[/QOUTE]
You have not! Which conclusive argument? I have not seen a single one in this thread except that you have realized that the clocks must in actual reality tick at the same rate. This does not invalidate the Lorentz transformations and/or Einstein's conclusion that the same light speed c will be measured by any observer no matter at what speed he/she moves relative to other observers.
QUOTE
Wrong: There are no internal contradictions in the special theory of relativity.
How come? I showed one crucial internal contradiction invalidating that “theory” without a trace. Why are you ignoring it?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Wrong: There are no internal contradictions in the special theory of relativity. |
How come? I showed one crucial internal contradiction invalidating that “theory” without a trace. Why are you ignoring it?
For the rest of the claims of that so-called “theory" of relativity I already showed a conclusive argument, invalidating it in its entirety.[/QOUTE]
You have not! Which conclusive argument? I have not seen a single one in this thread except that you have realized that the clocks must in actual reality tick at the same rate. This does not invalidate the Lorentz transformations and/or Einstein's conclusion that the same light speed c will be measured by any observer no matter at what speed he/she moves relative to other observers.
Here it is—this is the argument I gave at the start of this thread:
QUOTE
I will provide just one argument, not 100, as Einstein had required, to prove that his theory of relativity is invalid.
Thus, as can be seen in §10 of Einstein’s 1905 paper the first postulate of that theory requires that the mass m of a body be represented by exactly the same quantity m in any system. However, the Lorentz transformations (which, as can be seen in that same paper, theory of relativity cannot even derive) derive the same mass in K to be beta^3m. It is impossible for one and the same mass in one and the same system K to have two different values, respectively, m and beta^3m, unless beta = 1, that is, unless the theory of relativity is invalid.
Thus, as can be seen in §10 of Einstein’s 1905 paper the first postulate of that theory requires that the mass m of a body be represented by exactly the same quantity m in any system. However, the Lorentz transformations (which, as can be seen in that same paper, theory of relativity cannot even derive) derive the same mass in K to be beta^3m. It is impossible for one and the same mass in one and the same system K to have two different values, respectively, m and beta^3m, unless beta = 1, that is, unless the theory of relativity is invalid.
As for the physical invalidity of the Lorentz transformations you’re incorrectly quoting me in saying that my only argument was none other than “except that you have realized that the clocks must in actual reality tick at the same rate.”
You’ve missed to read the full quote on page 2:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I will provide just one argument, not 100, as Einstein had required, to prove that his theory of relativity is invalid. Thus, as can be seen in §10 of Einstein’s 1905 paper the first postulate of that theory requires that the mass m of a body be represented by exactly the same quantity m in any system. However, the Lorentz transformations (which, as can be seen in that same paper, theory of relativity cannot even derive) derive the same mass in K to be beta^3m. It is impossible for one and the same mass in one and the same system K to have two different values, respectively, m and beta^3m, unless beta = 1, that is, unless the theory of relativity is invalid. |
As for the physical invalidity of the Lorentz transformations you’re incorrectly quoting me in saying that my only argument was none other than “except that you have realized that the clocks must in actual reality tick at the same rate.”
You’ve missed to read the full quote on page 2:
Indeed, one calculates by using Lorentz transformations that the time in the other (moving) frame goes slower but this is only an illusion about what really happens in the other frame. The rate of time in the other frame is as in any frame. Indeed, in a given frame the rate of time is unaffected by whether or not there are other systems moving with respect to it. Let alone that there may be myriads of systems moving with myriads of different velocities with respect to that given frame and if their motion is to affect its rate of time then time in that system will be of myriad rates.
Similar argument applies to length-contraction.
A given system, however, has only one unique time and a solid body in that system only has one unique length and isn’t of myriad lengths at the same time as follows from the Lorentz transformations if their outcome isn’t accepted as just an illusion.
Therefore, an observer in a given frame using Lorentz transformations is a false speaker for the observer in the other (moving) frame but is only entertaining an illusion about what happens in the other frame. Physics has no use for transformations which achieve only that seemingness and do not provide the real truth as to what the observer at rest with the other frame actually sees. Avid adherents very aggressively try to brush off that inevitable conclusion about the Lorentz transformations.
Also, mind you, time-dilation is a consequence of the Lorentz transformations only and has nothing to do with the “theory” of relativity. “Theory” of relativity is just a compilation of trivial errors and internal contradictions and therefore the consequence from it is just that it is a sheer nonsense unable to derive anything, let alone the Lorentz transformations. Thus, your statement that “The special theory of relativity [is] based on the Lorentz transformations” is incorrect. What Einstein has done in his 1905 is give in the introduction and in the two first paragraphs an expose of some childishly incorrect, internally contradictory nonsense, in no way deriving, despite the claim in the third paragraph, the Lorentz transformations in particular, and then move on to present several exercises for the application of these well known years before Einstein’s 1905 paper transformations. These exercises fail miserably, as I have already shown, which requires rejecting altogether the idea that the 1905 paper contains any scientific contribution at all. No part of it has any significance for Physics whatsoever.
Omnibus,
Your argument about mass has been answered above by quite a number of people. Any "material body" has the same mass when it is stationary. This is its "rest mass". This is its "ground-state free energy". When it moves relative to you it has MORE energy than when it is stationary relative to you: Prove it to yourself by jumping in front of a stationary train and then repeating the jump in front of a moving train! . Since mass is energy, this means that one can also calculate kinetic energy in terms of mass units. Whether you represent energy as mass or mass as energy has thus NOTHING to do with your incorrect argument.
Mass that relates to inertia as embedded in the laws of Galileo , Newton and Einstein, is rest mass which is the same for all bodies at rest. Calculating an increase in energy as an increase in mass has absolutely NOTHING to do with this inertial mass.
I hope you will now be able to see the error in your reasoning.
Your argument about mass has been answered above by quite a number of people. Any "material body" has the same mass when it is stationary. This is its "rest mass". This is its "ground-state free energy". When it moves relative to you it has MORE energy than when it is stationary relative to you: Prove it to yourself by jumping in front of a stationary train and then repeating the jump in front of a moving train! . Since mass is energy, this means that one can also calculate kinetic energy in terms of mass units. Whether you represent energy as mass or mass as energy has thus NOTHING to do with your incorrect argument.
Mass that relates to inertia as embedded in the laws of Galileo , Newton and Einstein, is rest mass which is the same for all bodies at rest. Calculating an increase in energy as an increase in mass has absolutely NOTHING to do with this inertial mass.
I hope you will now be able to see the error in your reasoning.
In proving the physical invalidity of the Lorentz transformations (unrelated to the theory of relativity which fails prior to any mention of Lorentz transformations and should be rejected out of hand) one should add the following explicitly (it is contained implicitly in the above arguments I gave). According to the Lorentz transformations, in the moving system along the x-axis no two points of a rigid body can coexist in time. Also, according to the Lorentz transformations, depending on how many external systems a system is moving with respect to at different velocities, a given solid body in that system may have many different lengths at the same time and the rate of time in that system can be different. Since any system with which an observer is at rest with is also a moving system with respect to other systems, when judging about the length of an object or the rate of time in that system it is only necessary, according to the Lorentz transformations, to realize that it is in fact moving, to have the length of a compact body as well as the time in that system change. Thus, the rigid body which had all of its points coexisting when the observer considered the system he’s at rest with a stationary system, suddenly becomes disjointed, according to the Lorentz transformations, none of its points coexisting with each other any more the moment that observer realizes that his system is moving with respect to other systems. Lorentz transformations require that, upon just realizing that the system we are at rest with is moving, the unique rate of time we had prior to that realization suddenly change and the more systems with respect to which we find out we’re moving at different velocities, the more different rates our unique rate of time must start running at, at the same time.
These conclusions, coming about due to the Lorentz transformations are non-physical because a single body at rest with a given system can only have one, single, unique length and not many different lengths at once as the Lorentz transformations require. Needless to say, the same applies to the rate of time in that system—the rate of time in a given system for an observer at rest with that system is only one unique rate of time. Also, a rigid body at rest with a system has all of its points coexisting in time for an observer at rest with that system.
Therefore, although mathematically internally consistent, Lorentz transformations have no place in Physics.
These conclusions, coming about due to the Lorentz transformations are non-physical because a single body at rest with a given system can only have one, single, unique length and not many different lengths at once as the Lorentz transformations require. Needless to say, the same applies to the rate of time in that system—the rate of time in a given system for an observer at rest with that system is only one unique rate of time. Also, a rigid body at rest with a system has all of its points coexisting in time for an observer at rest with that system.
Therefore, although mathematically internally consistent, Lorentz transformations have no place in Physics.
QUOTE
Your argument about mass has been answered above by quite a number of people.
No, it hasn’t been answered. You don’t answer it as well. Because you don’t tell us how is it possible Einstein to be right when trying to demonstrate that one and the same body in the same system, at the same state of motion has both mass m and mass beta^3m.
Focus on this question and don’t distract yourself with “ground state free-energy”, “rest mass”, “jumping from a train” “Galileo, Newton and Einstein” and everything else not related to the question as to why is it that m and beta^3m relating to the same body in the same system at the same state of motion are one and the same quantity?
Omnibus,
It has NOTHING to do by what you want to consider must be physical, but with what an observer will observe when "looking into" a moving reference frame. What the observer sees is a distortion of what actually happens within the moving system. However, it is not "unphysical". For example the Cariolus force is not a force, but it acts like a force: Therefore it is physically real to an observer experiencing it.
Relativity is based on relative movement and the laws describing it , Galileo's, Newton's and Einstein's equations have been the greatest breakthroughs in physics EVER. Without these advances we would probably have been living under scientific terrorism. Not that we are gradually moving back into that direction. In is interesting that the first Relativist has been ZENO, who had to conclude, correctly, that "movement" of one body relative to another is strange. Like you, he through out the baby with the bathwater by concluding that "movement" is impossible!. Zeno's paradoxes can, however, be explained by Einstein's special relativity according to which there is no special stationary reference frame.
Think about it! I am now going to turn in. See you tomorrow, if you wish!!
It has NOTHING to do by what you want to consider must be physical, but with what an observer will observe when "looking into" a moving reference frame. What the observer sees is a distortion of what actually happens within the moving system. However, it is not "unphysical". For example the Cariolus force is not a force, but it acts like a force: Therefore it is physically real to an observer experiencing it.
Relativity is based on relative movement and the laws describing it , Galileo's, Newton's and Einstein's equations have been the greatest breakthroughs in physics EVER. Without these advances we would probably have been living under scientific terrorism. Not that we are gradually moving back into that direction. In is interesting that the first Relativist has been ZENO, who had to conclude, correctly, that "movement" of one body relative to another is strange. Like you, he through out the baby with the bathwater by concluding that "movement" is impossible!. Zeno's paradoxes can, however, be explained by Einstein's special relativity according to which there is no special stationary reference frame.
Think about it! I am now going to turn in. See you tomorrow, if you wish!!
Never mind all this. It doesn't answer the simple question as to why is it that m and beta^3m relating to the same body in the same system at the same state of motion are one and the same quantity.
I repeat—the same body, in the same system, in the same state of motion Einstein claims has at the same time mass m and mass beta^3m. Is this possible?
I repeat—the same body, in the same system, in the same state of motion Einstein claims has at the same time mass m and mass beta^3m. Is this possible?
mass m = apples
beta^3m = oranges
Your arguement doesn't work but nuclear bombs do.
And so does the GPS system which used relativisitic equations.
And that star was where Einstien said it would be during that eclipse.
If you called a donkey's tail a leg how many legs would that donkey have?
The correct answer is 4 calling it a leg doesn't make it a leg it's still a tail.
And calling it relativistic mass doesn't make it the same concept as rest mass.
beta^3m = oranges
Your arguement doesn't work but nuclear bombs do.
And so does the GPS system which used relativisitic equations.
And that star was where Einstien said it would be during that eclipse.
If you called a donkey's tail a leg how many legs would that donkey have?
The correct answer is 4 calling it a leg doesn't make it a leg it's still a tail.
And calling it relativistic mass doesn't make it the same concept as rest mass.
As a matter of fact, speaking of Lorentz transformations—because these transformations produce a disjointed entity, none of whose points exist at the same time, the concept of ‘length’ of a body is inapplicable to such an entity.
Don't worry about "nuclear bombs", "GPS systems", "rest mass", "relativistic mass" etc. and answer this simple question: can the same apple in the same system, in the same state of motion have both mass m and mass beta^3m?
The same apple ... in the same system ... in the same state of motion ...
The same apple ... in the same system ... in the same state of motion ...
QUOTE (Omnibus+Oct 20 2008, 08:27 PM)
Don't worry about "nuclear bombs", "GPS systems", "rest mass", "relativistic mass" etc. and answer this simple question: can the same apple in the same system, in the same state of motion have both mass m and mass beta^3m?
The same apple ... in the same system ... in the same state of motion ...
substitute "frood" the second time that you say "mass"
Maybe then you will get it.
The same apple ... in the same system ... in the same state of motion ...
substitute "frood" the second time that you say "mass"
Maybe then you will get it.
... in the same state of motion ... did you get it?
QUOTE (Omnibus+Oct 20 2008, 08:49 PM)
... in the same state of motion ... did you get it?
I repeat—the same body, in the same system, in the same state of motion Einstein claims has at the same time mass m and mass beta^3m. Is this possible?
mass is not mass
did you get it?
Someone used the same word for two different things.
Since you didn't get it.
Einstein claims has at the same time mass m and frood beta^3m. Is this possible?
Considering "mass" and "frood" are two differnt things, yes.
I repeat—the same body, in the same system, in the same state of motion Einstein claims has at the same time mass m and mass beta^3m. Is this possible?
mass is not mass
did you get it?
Someone used the same word for two different things.
Since you didn't get it.
Einstein claims has at the same time mass m and frood beta^3m. Is this possible?
Considering "mass" and "frood" are two differnt things, yes.
Mass of one and the same body in one and the same state of motion in the same system is mass. Got it? The same mass. One mass. The body is one and it has one mass. OK?
Try to understand it this way:
The second Newtons law, describing the motion of one single body in a given system is F = ma, not F = beta^3ma. Correct?
The second Newtons law, describing the motion of one single body in a given system is F = ma, not F = beta^3ma. Correct?
So, when someone tells you that the motion of a given single body in a given system is described by F = ma as well as by F = beta^3ma what would you tell him?
That Einstien was right that, it would be confusing to use m in both cases.
What both cases? The case is one--one object in one frame.
One object in one frame, at the same state of motion but Einstein claims it has two masses. Is that possible?
[QUOTE=Omnibus,Oct 20 2008, 07:49 PM] Never mind all this. It doesn't answer the simple question as to why is it that m and beta^3m relating to the same body in the same system at the same state of motion are one and the same quantity.
I repeat—the same body, in the same system, in the same state of motion Einstein claims has at the same time mass m and mass beta^3m. Is this possible?
The energy of a body with mass at rest is its mass within the reference frame within which it is in rest. If the body moves relative to a reference frame it has MORE energy than its rest mass within the reference frame relative to which it is moving. Thus to an observer it seems to have more mass BUT ONLY FOR AN OBSERVER RELATIVE TO WHICH THE BODY IS MOVING!!. For an observer moving with the body the mass is still the rest mass. Therefore there are two masses involved: (i) the stationary mass and (ii) the effective mass measured by an observer when the body is moving relative to him/her. If there were not this difference energy conservation would be violated: I hope this helps.
I repeat—the same body, in the same system, in the same state of motion Einstein claims has at the same time mass m and mass beta^3m. Is this possible?
The energy of a body with mass at rest is its mass within the reference frame within which it is in rest. If the body moves relative to a reference frame it has MORE energy than its rest mass within the reference frame relative to which it is moving. Thus to an observer it seems to have more mass BUT ONLY FOR AN OBSERVER RELATIVE TO WHICH THE BODY IS MOVING!!. For an observer moving with the body the mass is still the rest mass. Therefore there are two masses involved: (i) the stationary mass and (ii) the effective mass measured by an observer when the body is moving relative to him/her. If there were not this difference energy conservation would be violated: I hope this helps.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 21 2008, 01:23 AM)
The only reason the Earth observer sees the doppler RED shifted light is because THAT 'stationary' observer is not moving forward along with the emitter/ship like the astronaut is, and therefore is NOT 'cancelling' the 'emitter redshift' with 'receiver blueshift' as the astronaut's eyes on board are effectively doing.
Hence the light seems 'counteracted normal' to the forward-co-moving astronaut; but 'uncounteracted redshifted' to the 'stationary' Earth observer.
I hope I explained that OK in my hurry to be off.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Yes I agree my example was not very well explained: What I intended to explain was that if light speed is not measured to be the same relative to the capsule as it is measured on Earth, the astronaut would be experiencing a higher light speed on the space vehicle than c; Just as one would experience water waves to be faster when you move into them. Thanks for pointing out my incomplete argument!
Your explanation is correct on the space ship but not totally correct when compared to Earth: If the light speed on the space vehicle was referenced to Earth, instead of the space capsule, the astronaut will see a change in colour (as compared to Earth) since the frequencies of the light being emitted by the instruments stay the same; but the light is moving towards the astronaut faster than c. He would then be moving into the light speed thus effectively increasing it relative to himself. This is why light speed must have the same value c when measured by any observer no matter what speed he/she is moving at relative to other observers. If not, one would become unable to see your instruments when traveling at very high speeds relative to Earth: Except if you have X-ray eyes like Superman!
johanfprins, can one body in one system at one given state of motion have both mass m and mass beta^3m?
QUOTE (Omnibus+Oct 21 2008, 10:54 AM)
johanfprins, can one body in one system at one given state of motion have both mass m and mass beta^3m?
I still try to find out what you mean by beta^3m. When a body is at rest relative to a reference frame it has an energy mc^2 where m is its rest mass. When it moves relative to a reference frame it has a larger energy than mc^2 since it now also has kinetic energy relative to the observer that is not moving with it. Its energy can then be written as Mc^2 where M now includes the kinetic energy. According to an observer moving with the body, the body has no kinetic energy and within the reference frame moving with the body the energy of the body is still mc^2. It is not two masses measured relative to the same system but two masses measured relative to two reference systems: (1) the reference system within which the body is stationary (having thus a rest mass m) and (2) the reference frame relative to which it is moving (thus having a mass M which includes the kinetic energy). That kinetic energy is a relativistic physical parameter has been understood since Galileo: Although he nearly lost his life in the process. Since Einstein it is known that mass is energy thus at high speeds kinetic energy starts to behave as additional inertia (mass). There is no contradiction at all.
I still try to find out what you mean by beta^3m. When a body is at rest relative to a reference frame it has an energy mc^2 where m is its rest mass. When it moves relative to a reference frame it has a larger energy than mc^2 since it now also has kinetic energy relative to the observer that is not moving with it. Its energy can then be written as Mc^2 where M now includes the kinetic energy. According to an observer moving with the body, the body has no kinetic energy and within the reference frame moving with the body the energy of the body is still mc^2. It is not two masses measured relative to the same system but two masses measured relative to two reference systems: (1) the reference system within which the body is stationary (having thus a rest mass m) and (2) the reference frame relative to which it is moving (thus having a mass M which includes the kinetic energy). That kinetic energy is a relativistic physical parameter has been understood since Galileo: Although he nearly lost his life in the process. Since Einstein it is known that mass is energy thus at high speeds kinetic energy starts to behave as additional inertia (mass). There is no contradiction at all.
johanfprins, the question was can one single body in one given system have two different masses?
QUOTE (Omnibus+Oct 21 2008, 11:25 AM)
johanfprins, the question was can one single body in one given system have two different masses?
The question is flawed.
Why can't you even consider the possibility that maybe the lack of understanding is on your part?
The question is flawed.
Why can't you even consider the possibility that maybe the lack of understanding is on your part?
QUOTE (Omnibus+Oct 21 2008, 11:25 AM)
johanfprins, the question was can one single body in one given system have two different masses?
A FREE single body can only have a SINGLE ENERGY as measured relative to a single inertial refrence frame; and this single energy consists of potential energy (rest mass energy) and kinetic energy. The rest mass relates to the inertia of a stationary body. When such a body, however, moves at a very high speed relative to an observer the observer cannot measure rest mass energy. The kinetic energy in addition to the rest mass energy then begins acting as an increase in inertia (and thus mass) since it requires an increase in an applied force to accelerate it. Thus the total energy of the moving body can be written as Mc^2 where M>m. This does not mean two different masses: Since the body is not at rest, it has MORE inertia (a larger mass than its rest mass) within the reference frame relative to which it is moving. Therefore one can derive at slow speeds that Mc^2-mc^2=(1/2)mv^2, where v is the speed with which the body is moving relative to an observer.
So I REALLY cannot understand what you mean by "two different masses at the same time"? Somewhere you are losing me with "your logic"; which I find is based on wrong semantics.
A FREE single body can only have a SINGLE ENERGY as measured relative to a single inertial refrence frame; and this single energy consists of potential energy (rest mass energy) and kinetic energy. The rest mass relates to the inertia of a stationary body. When such a body, however, moves at a very high speed relative to an observer the observer cannot measure rest mass energy. The kinetic energy in addition to the rest mass energy then begins acting as an increase in inertia (and thus mass) since it requires an increase in an applied force to accelerate it. Thus the total energy of the moving body can be written as Mc^2 where M>m. This does not mean two different masses: Since the body is not at rest, it has MORE inertia (a larger mass than its rest mass) within the reference frame relative to which it is moving. Therefore one can derive at slow speeds that Mc^2-mc^2=(1/2)mv^2, where v is the speed with which the body is moving relative to an observer.
So I REALLY cannot understand what you mean by "two different masses at the same time"? Somewhere you are losing me with "your logic"; which I find is based on wrong semantics.
QUOTE (Omnibus+Oct 20 2008, 10:30 PM)
So, when someone tells you that the motion of a given single body in a given system is described by F = ma as well as by F = beta^3ma what would you tell him?
What do you say when someone says that bats can fly under their own power and bats can hit a baseball out of a baseball diamond?
What do you say when someone says that bats can fly under their own power and bats can hit a baseball out of a baseball diamond?
buttershug, so can one and the same body in the same system have two different masses?
Same question for you, johanfprins, can one body in one system have two different masses?
QUOTE (Omnibus+Oct 21 2008, 01:19 PM)
Same question for you, johanfprins, can one body in one system have two different masses?
I have just now answered this question in detail above:
But I also picked up that you posted that: 'So, when someone tells you that the motion of a given single body in a given system is described by F = ma as well as by F = beta^3ma what would you tell him? "
Both expressions are the same. F=ma is an approximation which is only valid at low speeds. It can be mathematically derived from the more general expression by Einstein which is valid at both low and very high speeds. So what is your problem?? This is old hat!!
I have just now answered this question in detail above:
But I also picked up that you posted that: 'So, when someone tells you that the motion of a given single body in a given system is described by F = ma as well as by F = beta^3ma what would you tell him? "
Both expressions are the same. F=ma is an approximation which is only valid at low speeds. It can be mathematically derived from the more general expression by Einstein which is valid at both low and very high speeds. So what is your problem?? This is old hat!!
QUOTE (Omnibus+Oct 21 2008, 01:15 PM)
buttershug, so can one and the same body in the same system have two different masses?
Can one Church have two different masses?
Can one Church have two different masses?
buttershug, mildly funny but doesn't answer the question.
johanfprins, F = ma and F = beta^3ma are not the same expressions.
Also, you didn’t answer the question but said that you “REALLY cannot understand what you mean by "two different masses at the same time?”
So, here’s the question again, can one body in a given system have two different masses?
Also, you didn’t answer the question but said that you “REALLY cannot understand what you mean by "two different masses at the same time?”
So, here’s the question again, can one body in a given system have two different masses?
QUOTE (Omnibus+Oct 21 2008, 01:56 PM)
johanfprins, F = ma and F = beta^3ma are not the same expressions.
Also, you didn’t answer the question but said that you “REALLY cannot understand what you mean by "two different masses at the same time?”
So, here’s the question again, can one body in a given system have two different masses?
Obviously a body can only have one mass: If at rest it is its rest mass, when moving at a high speed it is its Einstein dynamical mass.
The two expressions you claim are different are the same: The only difference is that at low speeds some of the terms when expanding Einstein's expression becomes so small that they can be ignored: Therefore at low speeds one can use F=ma where m is the rest mass. But this does not mean that the body moving with a slow speed v has a mass equal to its rest mass. It cannot since it is NOT at rest. It has a dynamic mass M so that (M-m)=(1/2)mv^2/c^2.
I hope this will be of help to you!
Also, you didn’t answer the question but said that you “REALLY cannot understand what you mean by "two different masses at the same time?”
So, here’s the question again, can one body in a given system have two different masses?
Obviously a body can only have one mass: If at rest it is its rest mass, when moving at a high speed it is its Einstein dynamical mass.
The two expressions you claim are different are the same: The only difference is that at low speeds some of the terms when expanding Einstein's expression becomes so small that they can be ignored: Therefore at low speeds one can use F=ma where m is the rest mass. But this does not mean that the body moving with a slow speed v has a mass equal to its rest mass. It cannot since it is NOT at rest. It has a dynamic mass M so that (M-m)=(1/2)mv^2/c^2.
I hope this will be of help to you!
Good. So now we have established with full certainty that a given body in a given system can only have one mass. We'll have to hear from buttershug if he too got it.
Next step, johanfprins, is to please read very carefully §10 of Einstein's 1905 paper to convince yourself that the expressions F = ma and F = beta^3ma refer to one and the same body in one and the same system at one and the same state of motion and therefore, there's no place to suggest that beta^3m is dynamic mass while m is not.
Next step, johanfprins, is to please read very carefully §10 of Einstein's 1905 paper to convince yourself that the expressions F = ma and F = beta^3ma refer to one and the same body in one and the same system at one and the same state of motion and therefore, there's no place to suggest that beta^3m is dynamic mass while m is not.
QUOTE (Omnibus+Oct 21 2008, 02:36 PM)
Next step, johanfprins, is to please read very carefully §10 of Einstein's 1905 paper to convince yourself that the expressions F = ma and F = beta^3ma refer to one and the same body in one and the same system at one and the same state of motion and therefore, there's no place to suggest that beta^3m is dynamic mass while m is not.
I am going to make a note of this and promise that I will get a copy of this paper and read it. Can you let me know where to get a copy or can you e-mail me a copy? I cannot promise an immediate response, however, but do promise to look at it as soon as time allows.
After all Einstein did derive length-contraction incorrectly. Being a genius does not guarantee no mistakes. I do remember, however, that the waters do become a bit murky when one wants to describe acceleration in terms of the Lorentz transformations. After all they only apply to constant motion.
I am going to make a note of this and promise that I will get a copy of this paper and read it. Can you let me know where to get a copy or can you e-mail me a copy? I cannot promise an immediate response, however, but do promise to look at it as soon as time allows.
After all Einstein did derive length-contraction incorrectly. Being a genius does not guarantee no mistakes. I do remember, however, that the waters do become a bit murky when one wants to describe acceleration in terms of the Lorentz transformations. After all they only apply to constant motion.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 20 2008, 05:13 PM)
100 years of experiments tell us that even if relativity is wrong, it's correct to parts per billion.
The theory of relativity contradicts the theory of relativity.Experiments prove this.
johanfprins, tried to send you a link with the paper but the forum doesn't allow me to post links. Lte's see if you can get it this way and then replace the 'dot' and 'frontslash' with the respective symbols: fourmilab dot ch frontslash etexts frontslash einstein frontslash specrel frontslash www.
Also, I wonder if anybody knows how to use LaTeX in this forum, if at all.
Also, I wonder if anybody knows how to use LaTeX in this forum, if at all.
Omnibus,
Thanks; it is the same translation that I have on file. I just wanted to check that we are really reading the same manuscript. As promised I will look at it as soon as I have enough time on my hands: which I hope is soon.
I always avoided LATEX: Too complicated for my little mind!
Thanks; it is the same translation that I have on file. I just wanted to check that we are really reading the same manuscript. As promised I will look at it as soon as I have enough time on my hands: which I hope is soon.
I always avoided LATEX: Too complicated for my little mind!
There is no such thing as mass. I mean, from the other point of view.
What other point of view?
QUOTE (Omnibus+Oct 21 2008, 01:51 PM)
buttershug, mildly funny but doesn't answer the question.
Yes it does.
A church could have a Roman Catholic Mass and an Eastern Orthadox Mass.
And they would be different, because they are different.
Actually those two masses would be more similar than the two different kinds of masses you are talking about.
Yes it does.
A church could have a Roman Catholic Mass and an Eastern Orthadox Mass.
And they would be different, because they are different.
Actually those two masses would be more similar than the two different kinds of masses you are talking about.
You mean both masses can be held at once in the same premises?
QUOTE (Omnibus+Oct 21 2008, 03:58 PM)
What other point of view?
Do you know your point of view? If you don't, how should I know about the other one?
Do you know your point of view? If you don't, how should I know about the other one?
What other one?
QUOTE (Omnibus+Oct 21 2008, 08:53 PM)
What other one?
Not sure but I guess the one we would like to see through?
Not sure but I guess the one we would like to see through?
No we don't. There's only one frame we're talking about.
I don't think any of you know what you're talking about.
QUOTE (Omnibus+Oct 21 2008, 09:02 PM)
No we don't. There's only one frame we're talking about.
But you are talking about homonyms.
But you are talking about homonyms.
QUOTE
I don't think any of you know what you're talking about.
You don't. That's for sure.
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 21 2008, 09:13 PM)
But you are talking about homonyms.
No, we're talking about one and the same particle in one and the same reference frame endowed with two different values of the mass because of a crucial contradiction in the so-called "theory" of relativity. This sole internal contradiction makes it mandatory to reject the "theory" of relativity in its entirety.
No, we're talking about one and the same particle in one and the same reference frame endowed with two different values of the mass because of a crucial contradiction in the so-called "theory" of relativity. This sole internal contradiction makes it mandatory to reject the "theory" of relativity in its entirety.
QUOTE (Omnibus+Oct 21 2008, 09:20 PM)
No, we're talking about one and the same particle in one and the same reference frame endowed with two different values of the mass because of a crucial contradiction in the so-called "theory" of relativity. This sole internal contradiction makes it mandatory to reject the "theory" of relativity in its entirety.
But you are talking about two different things when using the word "mass".
And I'm suprised no one has pointed out that if you are talking about one frame, then the "a" in F=ma equals zero.
you need two frames to have a be non-zero.
But you are talking about two different things when using the word "mass".
And I'm suprised no one has pointed out that if you are talking about one frame, then the "a" in F=ma equals zero.
you need two frames to have a be non-zero.
Can't we have F = ma (with a non-zero) in one frame?
QUOTE (Omnibus+Oct 21 2008, 11:24 PM)
Can't we have F = ma (with a non-zero) in one frame?
How?
a is a change in the rate of movement.
You can't have any movement relative to a frame when it is the only frame.
So you can't have acceleration not be zero.
How?
a is a change in the rate of movement.
You can't have any movement relative to a frame when it is the only frame.
So you can't have acceleration not be zero.
That's incorrect. Give it some more thought.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 22 2008, 12:03 AM)
.
Hi omnibus.
F=ma presupposes at least one OTHER frame with which to interact to exhibit/exchange the 'force' of the term "F". And as buttershug points out, the 'acceleration' term also presupposes another frame with which to move in respect to.
Gotta go out for a while. See y'all later/tomorrow. Cheers all!
RC.
.
No, it doesn't. Newton's laws handle motion within the parameters of one frame.
Hi omnibus.
F=ma presupposes at least one OTHER frame with which to interact to exhibit/exchange the 'force' of the term "F". And as buttershug points out, the 'acceleration' term also presupposes another frame with which to move in respect to.
Gotta go out for a while. See y'all later/tomorrow. Cheers all!
RC.
.
No, it doesn't. Newton's laws handle motion within the parameters of one frame.
No, that's incorrect and is beside the point. The problem at hand is different.
QUOTE (Omnibus+Oct 22 2008, 12:02 AM)
That's incorrect. Give it some more thought.
You have an object, right?
It is moving, right?
What is it moving relative to?
The frame of reference you are refering to?
Then you have two frames of reference. The one the object is moving relative to and the object itself.
If you have an object just sitting in the middle of space and move it from where it is, how would you do that? You would have to eject material out of it to propel it, and again have more than one frame of reference.
You are imagining some background reference with which to compare the movement of the object. There is none.
To be honest I now understand better why there is no special spot to observe things. Thanks.
You have an object, right?
It is moving, right?
What is it moving relative to?
The frame of reference you are refering to?
Then you have two frames of reference. The one the object is moving relative to and the object itself.
If you have an object just sitting in the middle of space and move it from where it is, how would you do that? You would have to eject material out of it to propel it, and again have more than one frame of reference.
You are imagining some background reference with which to compare the movement of the object. There is none.
To be honest I now understand better why there is no special spot to observe things. Thanks.
Like I said, the answer to all these questions and doubts is to somehow convince yourself that Newton's laws handle motion within the parameters of one frame.
Another reason why what you're saying is garbage is that F = ma assumes there is acceleration. Special relativity is only valid in inertial frames, which means no acceleration.
QUOTE (Omnibus+Oct 22 2008, 01:41 AM)
Like I said, the answer to all these questions and doubts is to somehow convince yourself that Newton's laws handle motion within the parameters of one frame.
No you still don't get it.
We are saying you need two frames to have movement.
With nothing, you have no frames.
I think you are imaging a background frame and not thinking of the frame of the object.
There is no background frame.
No you still don't get it.
We are saying you need two frames to have movement.
With nothing, you have no frames.
I think you are imaging a background frame and not thinking of the frame of the object.
There is no background frame.
Sorry to be devil's advocate, but I don't agree with your point buttershug. (And I'm pointing it out because I would currently support your overall argument in ignorance and would like to see a correct argument against Omnibus).
v<>0 is certainly not allowed in one frame, but I don't believe that a<>0 is disallowed in a non-inertial frame. From inside a lab, one can certainly tell if the lab is accelerating by experiencing the pseudo-force produced according to F=ma. You need no reference frame to be aware of acceleration.
That SR doesn't allow non-inertial frames would invalidate Omnibus' argument in SR, but as I understand he is making the argument against Relativity in general, so that argument is not sufficient.
Would anyone be able to post the article he is taking issue with?
My guess is that the altered mass term just represents the mass as viewed from a different frame, but that is certainly mere speculation.
v<>0 is certainly not allowed in one frame, but I don't believe that a<>0 is disallowed in a non-inertial frame. From inside a lab, one can certainly tell if the lab is accelerating by experiencing the pseudo-force produced according to F=ma. You need no reference frame to be aware of acceleration.
That SR doesn't allow non-inertial frames would invalidate Omnibus' argument in SR, but as I understand he is making the argument against Relativity in general, so that argument is not sufficient.
Would anyone be able to post the article he is taking issue with?
My guess is that the altered mass term just represents the mass as viewed from a different frame, but that is certainly mere speculation.
Then describe motion in one frame.
Either you or him.
But I think you are automatically thinking of a "background" frame of reference that the object is moving against.
Hint think of one frame of a cartoon.
edit;
There is an old saying "no matter where you go there you are"
It's the same for the object. No matter where the object is, the distance from the object to the object is zero. How can it ever be otherwise? and if the distance is always zero then velocity is always zero, and therefore accelleration is also zero.
To have movement you have to have seomthing for the object to have movement relative to. And if you have movement of the object relative to something, then that someting is also a frame of reference and therefore you have two frames of reference. The object and the something.
Either you or him.
But I think you are automatically thinking of a "background" frame of reference that the object is moving against.
Hint think of one frame of a cartoon.
edit;
There is an old saying "no matter where you go there you are"
It's the same for the object. No matter where the object is, the distance from the object to the object is zero. How can it ever be otherwise? and if the distance is always zero then velocity is always zero, and therefore accelleration is also zero.
To have movement you have to have seomthing for the object to have movement relative to. And if you have movement of the object relative to something, then that someting is also a frame of reference and therefore you have two frames of reference. The object and the something.
In an inertial frame, you certainly can't ascertain or describe whether or not that frame is in motion.
In a non-inertial frame, you certainly can ascertain and describe any change in speed from within that frame.
A force will be felt within the frame, and that force is enough to describe the change in motion. At any point in time one couldn't ascertain whether or not the frame is in motion, but that is irrelevant.
In a non-inertial frame, you certainly can ascertain and describe any change in speed from within that frame.
A force will be felt within the frame, and that force is enough to describe the change in motion. At any point in time one couldn't ascertain whether or not the frame is in motion, but that is irrelevant.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Hint think of one frame of a cartoon.
I'm afraid that's irrelevant, a frame can move in time, a single frame of a cartoon can't.
I guess that sounds true for an inertial frame, I can't think of why it would be otherwise.
I guess that sounds true for an inertial frame, I can't think of why it would be otherwise.
and if the distance is always zero then velocity is always zero, and therefore accelleration is also zero.
I can't see the fault in your logic, but there must be one. Otherwise all non-inertial frames would be equivalent, in the same way that all inertial frames are equivalent. That simply isn't the case.
That certainly makes sense and would seem to apply to inertial frames.
I still assert that from inside a closed lab, acceleration can be felt and calculated, no second frame required.
One of us must have made a fundamental error, I can't see who.
I still assert that from inside a closed lab, acceleration can be felt and calculated, no second frame required.
One of us must have made a fundamental error, I can't see who.
Yes you can and by that you would know there is a second frame of reference.
I.e. the one you are accellerating relative to.
I think you are still thinking of a background against which to move and not counting that as a frame.
Why do you think it's called the Theory or Relativity?
I'm afraid that's irrelevant, a frame can move in time, a single frame of a cartoon can't.
QUOTE
No matter where the object is, the distance from the object to the object is zero.
I guess that sounds true for an inertial frame, I can't think of why it would be otherwise.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No matter where the object is, the distance from the object to the object is zero. |
I guess that sounds true for an inertial frame, I can't think of why it would be otherwise.
and if the distance is always zero then velocity is always zero, and therefore accelleration is also zero.
I can't see the fault in your logic, but there must be one. Otherwise all non-inertial frames would be equivalent, in the same way that all inertial frames are equivalent. That simply isn't the case.
QUOTE
To have movement you have to have seomthing for the object to have movement relative to. And if you have movement of the object relative to something, then that someting is also a frame of reference and therefore you have two frames of reference. The object and the something.
That certainly makes sense and would seem to apply to inertial frames.
I still assert that from inside a closed lab, acceleration can be felt and calculated, no second frame required.
One of us must have made a fundamental error, I can't see who.
QUOTE (bm1957+Oct 22 2008, 12:15 PM)
I still assert that from inside a closed lab, acceleration can be felt and calculated, no second frame required.
One of us must have made a fundamental error, I can't see who.
Yes you can and by that you would know there is a second frame of reference.
I.e. the one you are accellerating relative to.
I think you are still thinking of a background against which to move and not counting that as a frame.
Why do you think it's called the Theory or Relativity?
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 22 2008, 02:58 PM)
Why do you think it's called the Theory or Relativity?
There's no need for that tone, is there?
It's because velocity is relative. So there is no such thing as absolute velocity. If a frame accelerates, it has a velocity relative to the velocity it had before it accelerated. You can't say anything about the absolute magnitude of either velocity, but you can tell the relative difference between the velocities, from within the frame.
The lab is accelerating, and is also observing... where's the other frame?
I'd go as far as insisting that your stance actually leads to the conclusion that non-inertial frames don't exist.
There's no need for that tone, is there?
It's because velocity is relative. So there is no such thing as absolute velocity. If a frame accelerates, it has a velocity relative to the velocity it had before it accelerated. You can't say anything about the absolute magnitude of either velocity, but you can tell the relative difference between the velocities, from within the frame.
QUOTE
Yes you can and by that you would know there is a second frame of reference.
I.e. the one you are accellerating relative to.
I think you are still thinking of a background against which to move and not counting that as a frame.
I.e. the one you are accellerating relative to.
I think you are still thinking of a background against which to move and not counting that as a frame.
The lab is accelerating, and is also observing... where's the other frame?
I'd go as far as insisting that your stance actually leads to the conclusion that non-inertial frames don't exist.
QUOTE (bm1957+Oct 22 2008, 08:15 AM)
In a non-inertial frame, you certainly can ascertain and describe any change in speed from within that frame.
No you can't. It could be gravity. You can't distinguish gravity from acceleration.
No you can't. It could be gravity. You can't distinguish gravity from acceleration.
QUOTE (bm1957+Oct 22 2008, 02:16 PM)
There's no need for that tone, is there?
It's because velocity is relative.
Relative to what position?
Now I'm not sure which frame you are not counting.
The frame of reference of the object.
Or the frame of rerference the object is moving relative to.
You said "if a frame accelerates" what is that frame accelerating relative to?
And my stance leads to only non-inertial frames exists in isolation from all other frames.
It's because velocity is relative.
Relative to what position?
Now I'm not sure which frame you are not counting.
The frame of reference of the object.
Or the frame of rerference the object is moving relative to.
You said "if a frame accelerates" what is that frame accelerating relative to?
And my stance leads to only non-inertial frames exists in isolation from all other frames.
I just thought of a mind experiment to try to illustrate.
Get a piece of paper. Draw a box. Move your finger in that box.
Which frame are you not counting, the box or your finger?
both are frames of reference.
Get a piece of paper. Draw a box. Move your finger in that box.
Which frame are you not counting, the box or your finger?
both are frames of reference.
QUOTE (NoCleverName+Oct 22 2008, 03:47 PM)
No you can't. It could be gravity. You can't distinguish gravity from acceleration.
Granted, but that backs up my point, IMO:
Gravitational force and the pseudo-force felt when you accelerate are equivalent. Now, if it requires two frames for acceleration to happen, it also requires two frames to experience a gravitational field, no?
That would be absurd.
Granted, but that backs up my point, IMO:
Gravitational force and the pseudo-force felt when you accelerate are equivalent. Now, if it requires two frames for acceleration to happen, it also requires two frames to experience a gravitational field, no?
That would be absurd.
You have the reasoning and the patience, sir, but do you have the club handy for the time your patience and reason run short? 
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 22 2008, 04:52 PM)
Relative to what position?
Velocity being relative means that you can give any frame any velocity, so long as you choose correctly the frame with which you are measuring that velocity relative to.
This means you need two frames to put a value on velocity.
There is one frame, let's call it the lab frame.
If it is inertial then we cannot give it a velocity (we can't even say v=0, I think this is your fundamental error). If it is non-inertial, then we can calculate the acceleration (or equivalent gravitational field) that it is experiencing, no second frame required.
There is one frame, let's call it the lab frame.
If it is inertial then we cannot give it a velocity (we can't even say v=0, I think this is your fundamental error). If it is non-inertial, then we can calculate the acceleration (or equivalent gravitational field) that it is experiencing, no second frame required.
You said "if a frame accelerates" what is that frame accelerating relative to?
Acceleration is a change in velocity. We can not put a value on any velocity of the frame, but we can calculate any change in velocity. It doesn't have to accelerate relative to anything except itself.
I almost wrote that but it is nonsense. It would mean that it is impossible to observe acceleration (which require the co-existence of an observer frame and a non-inertial frame), so I stick by the more general assertion that it would lead to the non-existence of non-inertial frames.
Velocity being relative means that you can give any frame any velocity, so long as you choose correctly the frame with which you are measuring that velocity relative to.
This means you need two frames to put a value on velocity.
QUOTE
Now I'm not sure which frame you are not counting.
The frame of reference of the object.
Or the frame of rerference the object is moving relative to.
The frame of reference of the object.
Or the frame of rerference the object is moving relative to.
There is one frame, let's call it the lab frame.
If it is inertial then we cannot give it a velocity (we can't even say v=0, I think this is your fundamental error). If it is non-inertial, then we can calculate the acceleration (or equivalent gravitational field) that it is experiencing, no second frame required.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now I'm not sure which frame you are not counting. The frame of reference of the object. Or the frame of rerference the object is moving relative to. |
There is one frame, let's call it the lab frame.
If it is inertial then we cannot give it a velocity (we can't even say v=0, I think this is your fundamental error). If it is non-inertial, then we can calculate the acceleration (or equivalent gravitational field) that it is experiencing, no second frame required.
You said "if a frame accelerates" what is that frame accelerating relative to?
Acceleration is a change in velocity. We can not put a value on any velocity of the frame, but we can calculate any change in velocity. It doesn't have to accelerate relative to anything except itself.
QUOTE
And my stance leads to only non-inertial frames exists in isolation from all other frames.
I almost wrote that but it is nonsense. It would mean that it is impossible to observe acceleration (which require the co-existence of an observer frame and a non-inertial frame), so I stick by the more general assertion that it would lead to the non-existence of non-inertial frames.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.