Radical Edward Posted May 24, 2004 Posted May 24, 2004 wespe, when dealing with something that is inherently mathematical, such as Relativity, you should really try to get your head round the maths first. That was you can phrase your argument in a mathematical form that can demonstrate whether you are right or wrong, in a neat logical manner that is much less open to confusion. It also makes it alot easier for people to deal with it, criticise it, and if it comes to it, agree or disagree with you.
atinymonkey Posted May 24, 2004 Posted May 24, 2004 don't worry. my brain will think of something, I can't help it I have the suspicion that this is something you came up with during a physics class one day. Why don't you bring it to the attention of one of your tutors, I'm sure they will be happy to discuss your extra curricular activities with you. Perhaps they could suggest an appropriate reading list.
wespe Posted May 24, 2004 Author Posted May 24, 2004 wespe, when dealing with something that is inherently mathematical, such as Relativity, you should really try to get your head round the maths first. That was you can phrase your argument in a mathematical form that can demonstrate whether you are right or wrong, in a neat logical manner that is much less open to confusion. It also makes it alot easier for people to deal with it, criticise it, and if it comes to it, agree or disagree with you. I agree.
wespe Posted May 24, 2004 Author Posted May 24, 2004 I have the suspicion that this is something you came up with during a physics class one day. Why don't you bring it to the attention of one of your tutors, I'm sure they will be happy to discuss your extra curricular activities with you. Perhaps they could suggest an appropriate reading list. nope. there's no class/tutor. only 'net and you.
kjitta Posted June 3, 2004 Posted June 3, 2004 By God, you are right! I always knew they were fibbing with us at school and at university. I have known all along since I could proove that 1 is infact not 1 but 2! x^2 - x^2 = x^2 - x^2 (x + x)(x - x) = x(x - x) x + x = x 2x = x 2 = 1 !!!
bloodhound Posted June 3, 2004 Posted June 3, 2004 By God' date=' you are right!I always knew they were fibbing with us at school and at university. I have known all along since I could proove that 1 is infact not 1 but 2! x^2 - x^2 = x^2 - x^2 (x + x)(x - x) = x(x - x) x + x = x 2x = x 2 = 1 !!![/quote'] It doesnt work that way, (x + x)(x - x) = x(x - x) x + x = x that step doesnt make sense, as ur dividinng both sides by (x-x)=0 and u cannot do that.
Fudyomo Posted June 3, 2004 Posted June 3, 2004 Ok, I'm still sat here wondering what on earth I just watched ? I've not read all the comments associated with this thread yet - but it looks like I'm in the majority. WTF ? Well, I guess it was a nice try mate.
Duke Posted June 4, 2004 Posted June 4, 2004 What? I dont know a lot about relativity but all I saw in that animation was just some simple maths. Lets just say ClockA is displaying valueA and ClockB is displaying valueB The reason the astronauts got the same average value from the clocks was because when you get further away from say clockA; you are seeing a lower valueA than the other guy who is sat right next to it. But that doesn't matter because when you get further away from clockA, you of coarse get closer to clockB and you will see a higher valueB than the dude who is sitting miles away next to clockA. I hope that makes sense to someone but its too late and i need some sleep and Im sorry if someone has already explained this earlier on in the thread but I cant be arsed to check right now.
AtomicMX Posted June 4, 2004 Posted June 4, 2004 i wasted my valuable time and bandwith to see something i cant still understand... .... sight..... i mean you could only have add a and b and all would be the same... and still... what does it has to do with relativity disaproval..
admiral_ju00 Posted June 4, 2004 Posted June 4, 2004 don't worry, as he said in post # 45 Only problem I found is the doppler effect (non relativistic doppler' date=' since I considered time dilation separately). So, what I failed to provide, is a formula, instead of (a+b)/2, that would not depend on distance to each clock, while the doppler is in effect. [b']Failing that, I withdraw my argument. [/b] Thank you.
kjitta Posted June 4, 2004 Posted June 4, 2004 Bloodhound, Your'e quite right. Of course it doesn't work that way, and that is exactly my point. Ignore simple rules and you get nonsence, just like wespe's supposedly proof of relativity being wrong. He is ignoring experimental evidence, simple rules and making up new ones as he goes along.
jordan Posted June 4, 2004 Posted June 4, 2004 Yes, you made a good point, but I still have one question. I'm feeling really dumb for not picking up on this, but why does your example math problem not work? Bloodhound pointed out a step where the error was, but I still don't see the problem.
kjitta Posted June 4, 2004 Posted June 4, 2004 1) x^2 - x^2 = x^2 - x^2 2) (x + x)(x - x) = x(x - x) 3) x + x = x 4) 2x = x 5) 2 = 1 !!! Going from line 2 to 3 I devide by x - x witch is an illegal operation since x - x = 0 for all x and one cannot devide by zero.
kjitta Posted June 4, 2004 Posted June 4, 2004 I must admit this thread has been an amusing read. I am starting to think that this is a windup, in that light this thread makes perfect sence. If that is not the case and the original poster trully beleives he is on to something new, then I would encourage the poster to try and formulate his arguments with mathematics and leave the handwaving arguments. If you are thorough and achieve the same result you may publish your thoughts in any journal you wish. But you wont catch me holding my breath till that happens.
Dave Posted June 4, 2004 Posted June 4, 2004 It doesnt work that way' date='(x + x)(x - x) = x(x - x) x + x = x that step doesnt make sense, as ur dividinng both sides by (x-x)=0 and u cannot do that.[/quote'] I don't think that he actually intended it to be mathematically correct
geistkiesel Posted June 9, 2004 Posted June 9, 2004 wespe, when dealing with something that is inherently mathematical, such as Relativity, you should really try to get your head round the maths first. That was you can phrase your argument in a mathematical form that can demonstrate whether you are right or wrong, in a neat logical manner that is much less open to confusion. It also makes it alot easier for people to deal with it, criticise it, and if it comes to it, agree or disagree with you. Your stressing the need for mathematical form attracted my attention here. I have been following the wespe argument and I have a question regarding Einstein's original moving train gedunken. Perhaps you can help clear up something for me. Photons are emitted from A and B in a stationary frame, just as a moving observer M' arrives at M, the midpoint of A and B. M' is heading toward B, away from A. Later a photon from B is detected at M', then a photon from A is detected at M', in the moving frame. SR theory, as I understand, concludes that the photons emitted simultaneously from A and B in the stationaary frame are not emitted simultaneously in the moving frame. Suppose we included on the moving frame an extension rod stretching a distance A'B' > AB (to account for any shrinking in the moving frame). At each end of the rod is a section of photo-sensitive strips each numbered such that the number 1 strip at one end is equidistant fom M' as is the number 1 strip at the other end of the rod and so on for a few thousand strips in each section. The strip widths are fractions of a micron. The common midpoint M' for the numbered strips was determined by the same laws of physics that determined the midpoint M of A and B in the stationary frame. Just as the photons are emitted simultaneously in the stationary frame photons expose a few photo-sensitive strips in each section, equally placed from M', in the moving frame. Special relativity theory calculates, or concludes, that the photons emitted simultaneously in the stationary frame are not emitted simultaneously in the moving frame. What affect does considering the simultaneous exposure of the photo-sensitve strips in the moving frame have on the logic and physics of applying special relativity postulates that determined the photons were not emitted simultaneously in the moving frame?
qazibasit Posted June 30, 2004 Posted June 30, 2004 i also dont understand that what it has to do with relativity. The theory of relativity is proved and a new radioactive element tau is made in a laboratory and it was accelerated at a speed almost equal to the speed of light so we will take its speed "c" the speed of light and then it was observed that it covered more distance than the expected distance in its half life it just means that when the body is accelerated with time the time dilates .Hence the relativity is prooved . What i didnt understand is that is it the time that dilates or was it the distance (length) that decreases.
qazibasit Posted June 30, 2004 Posted June 30, 2004 relativity just say that the speed of light is constant in this universe and the rest things are not absolute nothing is constant even the time maybe there are many worlds in the present time but they are out of our reach because of different time.
JaKiri Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 What affect does considering the simultaneous exposure of the photo-sensitve strips in the moving frame have on the logic and physics of applying special relativity postulates that determined the photons were not emitted simultaneously in the moving frame? Nothing. View the photon emission as an 'event' rather than shining a light beam. The maximum speed for information transfer is c. Does the same apply in this thought experiment? Of course it does. Now yours: all you're doing is adding another event at each end, at the same time as the initial events. Does this change anything? Of course not. This is fairly similar to this 'paradox': I have a torch, and a rod ten thousand million kilometers long. I shine the torch in a direction, and push the rod at the same time. When I poke the rod, a ball falls off the other end, seconds before the light gets there. How does this work with the maximum rate of information exchange being c? Lets look at the rod. What's it made of? Atoms. (Even if it was ONE BIG ATOM! this would still hold, just the force you're talking about changes) How does one atom know when to move? Because it's pushed by the previous atom. How does it do this? Electromagnetic repulsion between electrons. The exchange particle for the EM force is the... photon, which travels at c (shock), so the maximum rate the atoms in the rod can transmit the information is c.
JaKiri Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 relativity just say that the speed of light is constant in this universe and the rest things are not absolute nothing is constant even the time maybe there are many worlds in the present time but they are out of our reach because of different time. English only, please.
JaKiri Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 Re: the original topic, you have to include the thing you're trying to disprove when you're trying to formulate a paradox (as RE said, see the Twins Paradox). It's about as valid as trying to create a counterexample to SR by saying 'If you apply a constant force to an object, it will accelerate at a constant rate and therefore will pass the speed of light therefore SR is wrong'.
Guest HannonRJ Posted July 28, 2004 Posted July 28, 2004 Anyone attempting to understand Special Relativity must read and understand sections I-1 through I-3 of Einstein's ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES. Not just the words, but the intents and all of the algebra.
Skoteinos Posted August 11, 2004 Posted August 11, 2004 which travels at c (shock) ...That is possibly the funniest thing i've heard all week.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now