Lorentz Jr Posted February 10, 2023 Posted February 10, 2023 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Otto Nomicus said: What do say the velocity of the square and rectangle in the two diagrams were? If it's not 0.866 c or 0.4641 c then what is it? Are you going to make up some random velocity now? I love the way Otto sneaks his little insinuations into innocent-looking questions. "If it's not 0.866 c", as though anyone in this thread has said anything to that effect. And of course his imaginary premise naturally leads into damning speculations like "Are you going to make up some random velocity now?". He's very good at knocking down straw men. 😄 Edited February 10, 2023 by Lorentz Jr
Genady Posted February 10, 2023 Posted February 10, 2023 1 minute ago, Lorentz Jr said: I love the way Otto sneaks his little insinuations into innocent-looking questions. "If it's not 0.866 c", as though anyone in this thread has said anything to the contrary. And of course that imaginary premise naturally leads to damning speculations like "Are you going to make up some random velocity now?". He's very good at knocking down straw men. 😄 I have a question that actually belongs to the psychology rather than relativity forum: Why do you even bother? IOW, why to feed the troll?
Lorentz Jr Posted February 10, 2023 Posted February 10, 2023 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Genady said: Why do you even bother? IOW, why to feed the troll? Nothing better to do, and most of this thread was a good exercise for me. Relativity, TeX, Inkscape, all good skills for me to work on. It can also be helpful for beginning readers to see the real theory and calculations. 🙂 Edited February 10, 2023 by Lorentz Jr 1
swansont Posted February 10, 2023 Posted February 10, 2023 12 hours ago, Otto Nomicus said: No, my post is entirely correct Um, no. 12 hours ago, Otto Nomicus said: , no idea what either of the above replies are talking about, but it sure isn't reality. Oh the horizontal beam took 5 seconds alright, it's obvious, “it’s obvious” is less rigorous than required. In the lab frame, the wall is moving, after 5 sec the light has moved 5m, but wall isn’t there anymore. It has moved 0.866c*5sec = 4.33m away. But after 9.33 sec it still hasn’t hit, because the wall is still moving. The closing speed is only 0.134 m/s As I showed above, if you made a light clock with a return trip, the relativistic analysis is perfectly consistent You have made a common error: a thought experiment in relativity is just applied math. If you get inconsistent answers, then you’ve done the math wrong. (To disprove relativity you’d have to do an actual experiment and show that it’s not what relativity predicts)
Otto Nomicus Posted February 10, 2023 Author Posted February 10, 2023 Interesting that Genady considers disproving Special Relativity as trolling. I suppose if he can't actually refute my posts intelligently then throwing insults around is the next best thing. Same for Lorentz Jr. 1 minute ago, swansont said: Um, no. “it’s obvious” is less rigorous than required. In the lab frame, the wall is moving, after 5 sec the light has moved 5m, but wall isn’t there anymore. It has moved 0.866c*5sec = 4.33m away. But after 9.33 sec it still hasn’t hit, because the wall is still moving. The closing speed is only 0.134 m/s As I showed above, if you made a light clock with a return trip, the relativistic analysis is perfectly consistent You have made a common error: a thought experiment in relativity is just applied math. If you get inconsistent answers, then you’ve done the math wrong. (To disprove relativity you’d have to do an actual experiment and show that it’s not what relativity predicts) You fail to realize that the moving frame is not chasing its own light, it's exactly like it's not moving at all, you just think it has to chase its own light. It also doesn't matter if I do a two way version, I've done that on other forums actually. I'll see If I can find a diagram. -4
swansont Posted February 10, 2023 Posted February 10, 2023 1 minute ago, Otto Nomicus said: Interesting that Genady considers disproving Special Relativity as trolling. I suppose if he can't actually refute my posts intelligently then throwing insults around is the next best thing. Same for Lorentz Jr. They should have phrased the critique as “I have posted incorrect analysis and think it’s meaningful” 5 minutes ago, Otto Nomicus said: You fail to realize that the moving frame is not chasing its own light, it's exactly like it's not moving at all, you just think it has to chase its own light. It also doesn't matter if I do a two way version, I've done that on other forums actually. I'll see If I can find a diagram. I’m not sure what you mean by “chasing its own light” since the light is “chasing” the wall, and the wall is definitely moving in the lab frame. It’s moving at 0.866c.
Otto Nomicus Posted February 10, 2023 Author Posted February 10, 2023 (edited) 21 minutes ago, swansont said: They should have phrased the critique as “I have posted incorrect analysis and think it’s meaningful” Do you have a credible refutation of my posts or is your position that SR is right so I have to make everything work to conform to it or I didn't do it right? It has never actually been proved that the one-way speed of light is constant in all frames as viewed from any other. How could it when nobody has ever measured the one-way speed of light in the history of mankind? Two-way speed of light can be the same while each of its one-way components are completely different, ie; 1 and 3, 2 and 2, 1.5 and 2.5, 1.25 and 2.75, I could go on all day. I could make a two-way diagram but it would be a lot more complicated and wouldn't help your case any, it would actually make it worse. Why don't you make a two-way diagram, Swansont, if you're so fond of the notion, or can't you make a diagram, just gripe about the ones made by others not being up to your standards? Edited February 10, 2023 by Otto Nomicus -1
joigus Posted February 10, 2023 Posted February 10, 2023 1 hour ago, Otto Nomicus said: I think you're probably the only person who didn't comprehend what I wrote, but I'll humor you. Hey, count me in. @Lorentz Jr is doing the thankless job of trying to see what's inside the cuckoo clock. (1) You never specify events, or are very ambiguous about it. You keep referring to frame-dependent quantities as if they must mean something to a 'super-observer' that's only in your mind. (2) You never specify reference frames, or conflate different frames in one sentence. (3) You systematically ignore, or make no reference, to experimental results which, needless to say, totally confirm SR in each and every instance that's been looked into. In summary, you don't understand SR, nor are you willing to learn about it --or so it seems. It's impossible to follow your logic because there appears to none. None that's worth considering, anyway. 4
Lorentz Jr Posted February 10, 2023 Posted February 10, 2023 2 minutes ago, joigus said: Hey, count me in. @Lorentz Jr is doing the thankless job of trying to see what's inside the cuckoo clock. +1! 😋
Otto Nomicus Posted February 10, 2023 Author Posted February 10, 2023 26 minutes ago, joigus said: Hey, count me in. @Lorentz Jr is doing the thankless job of trying to see what's inside the cuckoo clock. (1) You never specify events, or are very ambiguous about it. You keep referring to frame-dependent quantities as if they must mean something to a 'super-observer' that's only in your mind. (2) You never specify reference frames, or conflate different frames in one sentence. (3) You systematically ignore, or make no reference, to experimental results which, needless to say, totally confirm SR in each and every instance that's been looked into. In summary, you don't understand SR, nor are you willing to learn about it --or so it seems. It's impossible to follow your logic because there appears to none. None that's worth considering, anyway. I don't believe you or anyone in this forum is really interested in science, just repeating what anyone can read in wikipedia. I certainly understand SR and I certainly don't need to learn about it from people on a forum, I read the actual articles. But I suppose you can explain Einstein's theory better than him. Anyway, I'm obviously wasting my time here, so go back to rehashing wikipedia pages to people who haven't heard it exists, because I won't be posting here anymore, ever, none of you are worth the effort. -2
joigus Posted February 10, 2023 Posted February 10, 2023 1 minute ago, Otto Nomicus said: I don't believe you or anyone in this forum is really interested in science, just repeating what anyone can read in wikipedia. I certainly understand SR and I certainly don't need to learn about it from people on a forum, I read the actual articles. But I suppose you can explain Einstein's theory better than him. Anyway, I'm obviously wasting my time here, so go back to rehashing wikipedia pages to people who haven't heard it exists, because I won't be posting here anymore, ever, none of you are worth the effort. Might this be the only time you've specified an event? Even if it's only an impending one? 2
swansont Posted February 10, 2023 Posted February 10, 2023 49 minutes ago, Otto Nomicus said: Do you have a credible refutation of my posts or is your position that SR is right so I have to make everything work to conform to it or I didn't do it right? It has never actually been proved that the one-way speed of light is constant in all frames as viewed from any other. How could it when nobody has ever measured the one-way speed of light in the history of mankind? Two-way speed of light can be the same while each of its one-way components are completely different, ie; 1 and 3, 2 and 2, 1.5 and 2.5, 1.25 and 2.75, I could go on all day. I could make a two-way diagram but it would be a lot more complicated and wouldn't help your case any, it would actually make it worse. Why don't you make a two-way diagram, Swansont, if you're so fond of the notion, or can't you make a diagram, just gripe about the ones made by others not being up to your standards? I griped about your math, not your diagrams. A thought experiment is just applied math. If you get inconsistent results, either math itself is flawed (have fun showing that) or you made a mistake with the math. Scientific theories are accepted as true because they agree with experiment. To show a theory to be false, you have to show disagreement between an experiment and the theory. e.g. the Eddington eclipse measurement not showing the proper deflection of light, or the Hafele-Keating experiment not showing the correct amount of time dilation. “I can’t get these numbers to agree” is an error (yours) in applying the math, nothing more. It’s as if one calculated that 100J of potential energy became 200 J of kinetic energy. That doesn’t disprove conservation of energy. It means one screwed up the math (dropped the 1/2 from the KE equation, for example)
Phi for All Posted February 10, 2023 Posted February 10, 2023 1 hour ago, Otto Nomicus said: I won't be posting here anymore, ever, ! Moderator Note Thread closed.
Recommended Posts