Mathematical Obscurities in Special Relativity

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by 1234567890</i>
<br />What I was objecting to is that SR uses Galilean relativity but rejects it at the same time. Relativity of simultaneity is redundant with time dilation- both imply a constancy of c. To use both simultaneously results in a contradiction.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You may have been revising your message while I was replying to it.

Relativity of simultaneity is very different from time dilation because the former is dominated by "time slippage" (vx/c^2) and gets only a minor contribution from time dilation. There are <i>two</i> terms in the Lorentz time transformation, not just the clock-slowing term. Time slippage is also essential to avoiding the contradiction of which you speak. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You have failed to notice a crucial distinction made by Einstein, relativists, and me in previous messages. SR says the speed of light must be c within any inertial frame, but must be c +/- v when peering into any other inertial frame. The same remarks apply to observers in those other frames. That way, all inertial frames are equivalent.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I said that in a post last week- the one about bowling balls
and baseballs. But this is the point of contention- SR says
that c is observed to be c even when peering into a moving frame
because of time dilation- that's the whole
point of the Lorentz transformation. Where else would time dilation fit into SR if not of observers peering into another inertial frame? The relativity of simultaneity is based on an
assumption that makes time dilation redundant.

Can be confine this multi-headed discussion to one forum? I can't keep track of what I've already said in each one. -|Tom|-

To continue on the above proposition, I now see that it fails to mention that x(t) was assumed to be an arbitrary curve in S: The proposition shows that the Lorentz Transformation (LT) does not sustain the invariance of an arbitrary curve x(t) in S. Thus, if x(t) is <b>arbitrary</b>, then v = 0 necessarily follows. On the other hand, if we take x=c*t, then the invariance is sustained.

We conclude that the LT does not sustain an arbitrary equation of motion, but only the motion of a photon, i.e., x(t)=c*t.

[^]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
<br />To continue on the above proposition, I now see that it fails to mention that x(t) was assumed to be an arbitrary curve in S: The proposition shows that the Lorentz Transformation (LT) does not sustain the invariance of an arbitrary curve x(t) in S. Thus, if x(t) is <b>arbitrary</b>, then v = 0 necessarily follows. On the other hand, if we take x=c*t, then the invariance is sustained.

We conclude that the LT does not sustain an arbitrary equation of motion, but only the motion of a photon, i.e., x(t)=c*t.

[^]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Not to mention the 3 different time zones an object has in SR. One
time zone for each spatial dimension. It's more fantastic than Star-Trek ideas.

123,

Talking about crazy ideas in science? Have a look at crazy ideas: [url] pup.princeton.edu/titles/7022.html [/url]

Crazy idea number 8: "Time travel exists"

The SR community keeps contradicting themselves. By taking a faster than light particle as a crazy idea number 9, they somehow imply that SR is valid, yet they think time travel is crazy. Logic has been abandoned from day one.

Crazy idea number 9: "Faster-than-Light Particles Exist."

Sorry, but should SR be on the list as well? They already assume that time travel and length contractions have been accepted as common sense science. Moreover, the graviton model is dead according to this crazy idea.

Crazy idea number 10: "There Was No Big Bang."

Yeah right, the Big-Bang has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt.


I think I'm going crazy [xx(]