Once Again: Relativity for Thought Experiments

On Feb 25, 7:57 am, Daryl McCullough wrote:

There exists a coordinate system such that, as measured
using that coordinate system,

1. Light travels as constant velocity, with magnitude c, in any
direction.

This was first proposed by Voigt in 1887. shrug

2. A standard clock will show an elapsed time T that satisfies
dT/dt = square-root(1-(v/c)^2).

Let’s not confuse Doppler effect with time dilation. shrug

3. A standard measuring rod, with equilibrium length L when
at rest, will have equilibrium length L square-root(1-(v/c)^2)
when traveling at speed v in a direction parallel to its length.

4. A standard measuring rod, with equilibrium length L when
at rest, will also have equilibrium length L when traveling
at speed v in a direction perpendicular to its length.

FitzGerald-Lorentz speculation. shrug

5. An object in freefall (no external forces acting on it)
will travel with constant velocity

That is called the conservation of momentum. shrug

with magnitude less than c.

Speed limit to c is a consequence of all the infinite transforms that
satisfy the null results of the MMX but not satisfy the principle of
relativity including Larmor’s transform that gives rise to the Lorentz
transform from a mathematical mistake made by Poincare. shrug

Theorem: If (x,y,z,t) is a coordinate system satisfying 1-5,
and (x',y',z',t') is a second coordinate system related to the
first through some combination of
rotations, translations, or Lorentz transformations,
then the second coordinate system will also satisfy 1-5.

Yes, and this is exactly where the paradox manifests itself. shrug

For those who believe that relativity is paradoxical
or inconsistent, could you please show how claims 1-5
lead to a contradiction?

You are still shrouded in mysticism. Concentrate on the symmetry in
which the paradox lies within. shrug

my, Newton's dead-horse corpuscle being flogged, whereas
the wavefront has a speed, but no (directed) velocity.

how about the simple phrase, brought out
in discussing Einstein's "photon" neologism
for a quantum of light-energy with an old theoretical physics prof,
"relativity of vacuum?"

her's Atlas and Bucky shugging mightily at you!

1. Light travels as constant velocity, with magnitude c, in any
direction.

You are still shrouded in mysticism. *Concentrate on the symmetry in
which the paradox lies within. *shrug

Koobee Wublee says...

On Feb 25, 7:57 am, Daryl McCullough wrote:

There exists a coordinate system such that, as measured
using that coordinate system,

1. Light travels as constant velocity, with magnitude c, in any
direction.

This was first proposed by Voigt in 1887.

That's irrelevant. The question for this thread is:
Are assumptions 1-5 consistent? Mathematically consistent?

Yes, or no?

2. A standard clock will show an elapsed time T that satisfies
dT/dt = square-root(1-(v/c)^2).

Let's not confuse Doppler effect with time dilation.

Well, what I wrote is definitely not the Doppler effect,
but what you call it is irrelevant.

3. A standard measuring rod, with equilibrium length L when
at rest, will have equilibrium length L square-root(1-(v/c)^2)
when traveling at speed v in a direction parallel to its length.

4. A standard measuring rod, with equilibrium length L when
at rest, will also have equilibrium length L when traveling
at speed v in a direction perpendicular to its length.

FitzGerald-Lorentz speculation.

That's completely irrelevant. This thread is purely about the
question: Are assumptions 1-5 mathematically inconsistent? Yes, or no?


5. An object in freefall (no external forces acting on it)
will travel with constant velocity

That is called the conservation of momentum.

So?

with magnitude less than c.

Speed limit to c is a consequence of all the infinite transforms that
satisfy the null results of the MMX but not satisfy the principle of
relativity including Larmor=92s transform that gives rise to the Lorentz
transform from a mathematical mistake made by Poincare. shrug

Theorem: If (x,y,z,t) is a coordinate system satisfying 1-5,
and (x',y',z',t') is a second coordinate system related to the
first through some combination of
rotations, translations, or Lorentz transformations,
then the second coordinate system will also satisfy 1-5.

Yes, and this is exactly where the paradox manifests itself.

Then show how assumptions 1-5 lead to a contradiction. The
short answer is: they don't. They *PROVABLY* do not. If you
think otherwise, then give a mathematical derivation that
only uses assumptions 1-5.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

On Feb 28, 6:19 am, Daryl McCullough wrote:

That's completely irrelevant. This thread is purely about the
question: Are assumptions 1-5 mathematically inconsistent? Yes, or no?

After laying down all these rules, to claim all transformation, that
still follow these rules, are still valid is just stupid. Here is an
example.

Eric and Daryl both went to the local sporting goods store and each
bought a defective pair of binoculars. The distortion is in the
horizontal direction where all observations through such a pair of
binoculars would yield a person to be much fatter than in real life.

Now, Eric and Daryl observe each other through their binoculars and
would comment on how chubby the other one is. At this state, all the
transformations are within the rules laid out, but when Eric and Daryl
meet, they then realize their binoculars are indeed defective.

Gee! Yours truly just cannot believe anyone would bring this up to
justify this moron’s belief. Well, that is not surprising for someone
who has a history of manually designing voodoo mathematics to justify
his believe.

shame shame shame

** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** BULL**** IS TRUTH
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS

Koobee Wublee says...

On Feb 28, 6:19 am, Daryl McCullough wrote:

That's completely irrelevant. This thread is purely about the
question: Are assumptions 1-5 mathematically inconsistent? Yes, or no?

After laying down all these rules, to claim all transformation, that
still follow these rules, are still valid is just stupid.

Whatever. The question is whether rules 1-5 are mathematically consistent.
Do you agree that they are, or not?

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

In article , Daryl McCullough says...

Koobee Wublee says...

On Feb 28, 6:19 am, Daryl McCullough wrote:

That's completely irrelevant. This thread is purely about the
question: Are assumptions 1-5 mathematically inconsistent? Yes, or no?

After laying down all these rules, to claim all transformation, that
still follow these rules, are still valid is just stupid.

Whatever. The question is whether rules 1-5 are mathematically consistent.
Do you agree that they are, or not?

For reference, the rules:

There exists a coordinate system such that, as measured
using that coordinate system,

1. Light travels as constant velocity, with magnitude c, in any
direction.

2. A standard clock will show an elapsed time T that satisfies
dT/dt = square-root(1-(v/c)^2).

3. A standard measuring rod, with equilibrium length L when
at rest, will have equilibrium length L square-root(1-(v/c)^2)
when traveling at speed v in a direction parallel to its length.

4. A standard measuring rod, with equilibrium length L when
at rest, will also have equilibrium length L when traveling
at speed v in a direction perpendicular to its length.

5. An object in freefall (no external forces acting on it)
will travel with constant velocity with magnitude less than c.

Theorem(proof left as an exercise): If (x,y,z,t) is a coordinate system
satisfying 1-5, and (x',y',z',t') is a second coordinate system
related to the first through some combination of
rotations, translations, or Lorentz transformations,
then the second coordinate system will also satisfy 1-5.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Daryl McCullough set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

In article , Daryl McCullough says...
Whatever. The question is whether rules 1-5 are mathematically consistent.
Do you agree that they are, or not?

For reference, the rules:

There exists a coordinate system such that, as measured
using that coordinate system,

{ & mucel mo vpon þis wyse ]

You may as well not bother. You'll never shut these antirelativists up no
matter how much maths you throw at them. Meanwhile, they can never offer
anything concrete in return.

(I'm OK with it all though.)
--
ξ Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

On Feb 28, 7:29 pm, (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
beth howland says...

that is really going to throw him for loop. it is a kind of hard,
to justify the asymmetry of the accelerated astronaut,
compared to teh stay-at-home, when they both see ... oops.

Doppler shift is one way to keep track of the relative ages of
the two twins in a "twin paradox".

So, you are confused Doppler effect from time dilation. shrug

The Doppler shift formula tells us that for the outward
journey, the signals will arrive at a rate of
square-root((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)) per second, which is about
0.27 signals per second.

Doppler shift is always the observed speed of the signal divided by
the wavelength. In air, the speed of sound goes by (c +/- v) while
the wavelength is invariant, and that is the classical Doppler
effect. In relativity, the speed is always c. So, the relativistic
Doppler effect only depends on how the wavelength is transformed. So,
how exactly is the wavelength transformed in SR? You want to prepare
a bag before you puke. shrug

Supposed in these two twins taking videos of themselves. The
bandwidth of the video is f1. With a simple mixing of carrier
frequency of f0, what are the results in frequency bands? When the
mixed signal is received by the other twin, what is the Doppler shift
of the entire frequency band? When the receiving twin adjusts for the
Doppler shift by mixing the received signal with a frequency
appropriately shifted in accounting for the Doppler shift, what is the
result bandwidth of the original video signal?

...

You have shown deeply in your heart that you would rather abandoning
logic and science than embracing the nonsense of SR in which you have
zealously BELIEVE IN so. You have been shown that all your voodoo
math is garbage justifying your religion. shrug

On Feb 28, 1:41 pm, Daryl McCullough wrote:
Koobee Wublee says...

After laying down all these rules, to claim all transformation, that
still follow these rules, are still valid is just stupid.

Whatever. The question is whether rules 1-5 are mathematically consistent..
Do you agree that they are, or not?

No, you have been told that they are not mathematically consistent.
They manifest paradoxes which are forbidden in real life. shrug

Oh, you probably want to know where the inconsistencies occur. Well,
that is in the twin’s paradox, the Doppler shift, and others. The
Lorentz transform is just bad. Yours truly has also gone out of His
way to show where and how the Lorentz transform gone bad, and that was
never addressed and met with dumbfounded silence from the self-styled
physicists. shrug

Without addressing the fault of the path leading to the Lorentz
transform, talking about the faults of the Lorentz transform is rather
unethical against what science stands for. shrug

Koobee Wublee says...

On Feb 28, 1:41 pm, Daryl McCullough wrote:
Koobee Wublee says...

After laying down all these rules, to claim all transformation, that
still follow these rules, are still valid is just stupid.

Whatever. The question is whether rules 1-5 are mathematically consistent=
.
Do you agree that they are, or not?

No, you have been told that they are not mathematically consistent.

Well, that is false. They are provably consistent.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY