Questions about Special Relativity

[swansont]

What does this mean' date=' that it cannot be answered from a physics standpoint?

 

Do you mean that the statement is not empirically verifiable?[/quote']

 

You can't make a hyopthetical situation that violates the laws of physics and expect physics to explain any resulting phenomenon.

[Johnny5]

You can't make a hyopthetical situation that violates the laws of physics and expect physics to explain any resulting phenomenon.

 

What situation did I make, which was hypothetical?

 

Actually, all I did was derive the length contraction formula and time dilation formula from one assumption, namely that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames.

 

I thought the derivation was rather thorough myself.

[swansont]

What situation did I make' date=' which was hypothetical?

 

Actually, all I did was derive the length contraction formula and time dilation formula from one assumption, namely that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames.

 

I thought the derivation was rather thorough myself.[/quote']

 

 

If you can't keep your own posts straight, how the heck is anyone else supposed to? My answer was to your request to answer a post in the "Question about General Relativity Theory" thread. Star Trek, and all that.

 

Perhaps you should not cross-pollinate in this way.

[Johnny5]

 

If you can't keep your own posts straight' date=' how the heck is anyone else supposed to? My answer was to your request to answer a post in the "Question about General Relativity Theory" thread. Star Trek, and all that.

 

Perhaps you should not cross-pollinate in this way.[/quote']

 

I can keep them straight, right now I am trying to figure out why there is confusion.

 

I don't want there to be any confusion, so from this point on, I am going to be crystal clear, at least for today anyways.

[Johnny5]

 

If you can't keep your own posts straight' date=' how the heck is anyone else supposed to? My answer was to your request to answer a post in the "Question about General Relativity Theory" thread. Star Trek, and all that.

 

Perhaps you should not cross-pollinate in this way.[/quote']

 

Ok I went back to the most important post I made, in this thread... post #79.

 

In that post, I successfully proved that the following theorem is true:

 

Theorem: If the speed of a photon is the same in any inertial reference frame then the following two statements are true:

 

Dt` = Dt/ [1 - (V/c)² ]^1/2

 

L = L₀ [1 - (V/c)² ]^1/2

 

I know that the theorem is true. So if anyone can convince me that the antecedent of the conditional is true, then I will know that both the Lorentz contraction formula, and the time dilation formula are true.

 

But I am not currently convinced that the antecedent is true.

 

But there is another question as well. Is it even possible to convince me that the antecedent is true? If the antecedent is false, then it is impossible to convince me that the consequent is true. These are simple logical facts that everyone who has thoroughly studied logic should know.

 

Now, I further say this...

 

I have an argument, which begins by assuming the length contraction formula is true, and never assumes the time dilation formula is true, and that argument terminates with a contradiction, whence you must negate the only assumption, which was that the Lorentz formula is true.

 

Now, if the Lorentz formula is false, then the antecedent of the theorem above must also be false. Whence I claim that you can logically conclude that the fundamental postulate of the theory of special relativity is false.

 

So if I have made a logical error, it would be located in that argument. I am not aware of any logical error in that argument though.

 

Whence I began looking for another explanation of the MM experiment, and began contemplating the idea that the speed of light is c relative to the emitter. Note that this statement is weaker than Einstein's postulate. In other words, if Einstein's postulate is true, then so is this statement, and if Einstein's postulate is false, this statement could still be true.

 

Additionally, in the course of that argument, which is logically rigorous, the issue of simultaneity arose. I then developed another argument, which convinced me that moving rulers cannot contract or expand solely because they are moving, and I tied this into simultaneity.

 

So for better or worse, this is the logic I have access to. If I have made a logical error anywhere, it can in principle be isolated by someone else. I don't mind having a logical error of mine located, so feel free to try.

 

Kind regards to all

[swansont]

So if I have made a logical error' date=' it would be located in that argument. I am not aware of any logical error in that argument though.

[/quote']

 

from your post 87 (emphasis added):

 

Ruler 1:A-----------B

Ruler 2:___________A`----------B`

 

There will come a moment in time, at which B will coincide with A`. That moment in time marks the beginning of an event, which ends when A coincides with A`.

 

My question is, when A` coincides with A, does B` simultaneously coincide with B??? I say yes.

 

Check the truth value of your statements in multiple frames.

 

If simultaneity is absolute, then A` coincides with A simultaneously to B` coinciding with B in all frames of reference.

 

Here swansont...

 

Consider things from the rest frame of ruler two.

 

Suppose the length contraction formula is true.

 

Therefore, in this frame, Ruler one is length contracted, so that we can conclude that it's true that A coincides with A` before B coincides with B`.

 

Now, consider things from the rest frame of ruler one.

 

In this frame, Ruler two is length contracted, so that we can conclude that it's true that B` coincides with B before A` coincides with A.

 

So we have concluded this:

 

A` coincides with A before B` coincides with B, AND B` coincides with B before A` coincides with A.

 

It's a problem because of the bolded statement - you have assumed simultaneity is absolute, and that's going to contradict anything derived from relativity, in which simultaneity is not absolute.

 

Observers A and B will disagree on when events happened.

[swansont]

Ok I went back to the most important post I made' date=' in this thread... post #79.

 

In that post, I successfully proved that the following theorem is [i']true[/i]:

 

Theorem: If the speed of a photon is the same in any inertial reference frame then the following two statements are true:

 

Dt` = Dt/ [1 - (V/c)² ]^1/2

 

L = L₀ [1 - (V/c)² ]^1/2

 

I know that the theorem is true. So if anyone can convince me that the antecedent of the conditional is true, then I will know that both the Lorentz contraction formula, and the time dilation formula are true.

 

But I am not currently convinced that the antecedent is true.

 

But there is another question as well. Is it even possible to convince me that the antecedent is true? If the antecedent is false, then it is impossible to convince me that the consequent is true. These are simple logical facts that everyone who has thoroughly studied logic should know.

 

 

And this is why we do experiments. Science doesn't have proofs as mathematics and logic do. You can't deductively show that the antecedent is true. But by measuring time dilation effects, we can see that the equation does indeed hold, which gives us confidence that the equation is valid and the postulate is correct.

 

There is also the matter of Maxwell's equations and the solution for EM waves I have discussed. More indications that c must be constant in all inertial frames.

[Johnny5]

from your post 87 (emphasis added):

 

Ruler 1:A-----------B

Ruler 2:___________A`----------B`

 

There will come a moment in time' date=' at which B will coincide with A`. That moment in time marks the beginning of an event, which ends when A coincides with A`.

 

[b']My question is, when A` coincides with A, does B` simultaneously coincide with B??? I say yes.[/b]

 

 

It's a problem because of the bolded statement - you have assumed simultaneity is absolute, and that's going to contradict anything derived from relativity, in which simultaneity is not absolute.

 

Observers A and B will disagree on when events happened.

 

Right there you say , and I quote, "A and B will disagree on when events happened."

 

Are you using the term 'event' in a manner consistent with its usage in physics, or its usage in temporal logic?

 

The reason I ask, is because perhaps this is one source of confusion, which can easily be eliminated.