Topic 4: Special Relativity - Lorentz transformations

[Jan Slowak]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

As I've explained, it's not obvious, because you have intermixed the primed and unprimed. And in fig 4-05, you are describing things in the primed frame. So it is not at all obvious what you are describing.

 

 

You jump between different pictures and do not logically follow our disclaimer. An event is denoted by E = (x, t) for S and E'= (x', t') for S'.
In Fig. 4-05, it should be E '= (x', t '). But don't forget that E is identical to E '.
Where are the errors I make in the pictures Fig. 4-06, Fig. 4-07 and how I describe the phenomenon?

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

You jump between different pictures and do not logically follow our disclaimer.

Um, no. YOU were the one who pointed me to these figures. In your last post, you tell me to look at Fig 4-05. Earlier it had been 4-06 and 4-07.

 

 

 

 

[Jan Slowak]

41 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Here is a link to a lecture from Yale that clearly explains LT using the same method that you are discussing.  I think it is a quite good lecture.

LINK

Thanks. I've watched the video before.

33 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

If your proposed equation x = vt'+ ct'  where true photons would have a velocity that is frame dependent. For instance would light travel at velocity c in vacuum in one frame of reference and velocity less than c in vacuum in another frame of reference.

your pictures are deliberatly or unintentionally ambigous so that they can’t be used to give any more details that @swansont have given; frames of reference are messad up. We need better pictures and more care about frames of reference. I know how to draw such diagrams. But:

So you go ahead and draw and I’ll keep pointing out the errors.

So you cannot prove that I am wrong in the pictures Fig. 4-06, Fig. 4-07!

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

Thanks. I've watched the video before.

Maybe try watching it again with an open mind: don't assume it is wrong; don't assume that you are correct. In fact, it would be safe to watch it assuming everything you think you know is wrong.

Watch it and when you find yourself disagreeing, think about why your misunderstanding is different from the (correct) explanation been given.

(I doubt you will do this. You are convinced that you are correct and that millions of people in the last 100+ years have failed to spot this trivial error in the arithmetic. Just stop and think about how implausible that is...)

[Jan Slowak]

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

Um, no. YOU were the one who pointed me to these figures. In your last post, you tell me to look at Fig 4-05. Earlier it had been 4-06 and 4-07.

 

 

 

 

Where are the errors I make in the pictures Fig. 4-06b, Fig. 4-07b and how I describe the phenomenon?

 

[Ghideon]

12 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

So you cannot prove that I am wrong in the pictures Fig. 4-06, Fig. 4-07!

I did, you just don’t get it. Or you prefer to ignore it. 

[Jan Slowak]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

Maybe try watching it again with an open mind: don't assume it is wrong; don't assume that you are correct. In fact, it would be safe to watch it assuming everything you think you know is wrong.

Watch it and when you find yourself disagreeing, think about why your misunderstanding is different from the (correct) explanation been given.

(I doubt you will do this. You are convinced that you are correct and that millions of people in the last 100+ years have failed to spot this trivial error in the arithmetic. Just stop and think about how implausible that is...)

Where are the errors I make in the pictures Fig. 4-06b, Fig. 4-07b and how I describe the phenomenon?

 

13 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I did, you just don’t get it. Or you prefer to ignore it. 

I do not ignore what you write. I read everything and think and answer.
Refer to the pictures Fig. 4-06b, Fig. 4-07b and say where am I wrong.

 

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

Where are the errors I make in the pictures Fig. 4-06b, Fig. 4-07b and how I describe the phenomenon?

 

See the posts above. (Note: you are obviously wrong, you just need to learn to accept that and then understand why. See also: Dunning-Kruger.)

 

[Jan Slowak]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

See the posts above. (Note: you are obviously wrong, you just need to learn to accept that and then understand why. See also: Dunning-Kruger.)

 

I can also write in the same way as you:
Note: you are obviously wrong, you just need to learn to accept that and then understand why.
What are you doing?

But I do not want to engage in such discussions. I wanted to talk about the derivation of Lorentz Transformations.

 

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

I can also write in the same way as you:
Note: you are obviously wrong, you just need to learn to accept that and then understand why.

You can, but 120 years of theory and experimental evidence is not on your side. 

6 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

What are you doing?

I am trying to help you. You will never accept any of the explanations being provided until you can accept the strong possibility that you are mistaken. 

Until you can do that, you are just wasting everyone’s time. 

No one will accept what you are saying (because it is obviously and trivially wrong). And you will never accept any explanation because you are blinded by your self-belief. 

 

[Jan Slowak]

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

You can, but 120 years of theory and experimental evidence is not on your side. 

I am trying to help you. You will never accept any of the explanations being provided until you can accept the strong possibility that you are mistaken. 

Until you can do that, you are just wasting everyone’s time. 

No one will accept what you are saying (because it is obviously and trivially wrong). And you will never accept any explanation because you are blinded by your self-belief. 

 

I do not want such discussions. I wrote at the beginning of this thread:
I really want to understand how Lorentz Transformations work!
I think I do not make a mistake in Fig. 4-06b, Fig. 4-07b.

If you think I'm wrong then I want an explanation! Specifically, no deviation from the main subject.
So: Where are the errors I make in the pictures Fig. 4-06b, Fig. 4-07b and how I describe the phenomenon?

[Phi for All]

45 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

I do not ignore what you write. I read everything and think and answer.
Refer to the pictures Fig. 4-06b, Fig. 4-07b and say where am I wrong.

!

Moderator Note

This has been done many times, but unfortunately you are very willful and insistent, and this may be blinding you to the obvious errors being pointed out (you obviously don't recognize what others are posting, or you wouldn't keep asking for the same thing they've already given you). Now you're just preaching.

Discussion is a powerful tool in science, but it requires that you remove your blinders and be reasonable and listen. A better strategy for you would be to take a formal course in Relativity so an instructor can isolate your misunderstandings in a way you'll recognize.

This thread is closed, it's become circular and unproductive.