Well that's the trouble, Johan. You're using High School Algebra when in fact you need to be using very advanced relativistic theory.johanfprins wrote:[ No! I am just stating facts that anybody who knows High School algebra can check for him/herself:
You are entitled to your opinion. You are also entitled to insult me. But I would prefer it more if you would rather point out where I have made a mistake in my algebra and show me the advanced mathematics that I must use.GIThruster wrote:Well that's the trouble, Johan. You're using High School Algebra when in fact you need to be using very advanced relativistic theory.johanfprins wrote:[ No! I am just stating facts that anybody who knows High School algebra can check for him/herself:
If I were half as arrogant as you, I'd be advocating for physics I don't understand, and if I were half as much an asshole as you, I'd be depricating peeps around to bolster my shitty waining ego.
STOP!!! Stop acting like a complete asshole.
But Johan, you're presuming I'm a physicist and field theorist. I'm not. I'm a humble philosopher.I would prefer it more if you would rather point out where I have made a mistake in my algebra and show me the advanced mathematics that I must use.
You're asking for a real physicist to answer your questions, when a 12 year-old can give you the answers.Betruger wrote:Don't say you're capable of it, do it. Where did he go wrong in the above math?
Answering that takes the conversation forward, continuing the purse swinging keeps it going in circles.
Are you claiming to be a real physicist ?GI wrote:You're asking for a real physicist to answer your questions, when a 12 year-old can give you the answers.
So why do you call people asking questions morons?GI wrote:you're presuming I'm a physicist and field theorist. I'm not. I'm a humble philosopher
This is a strawman argument.GI wrote:Lets all STOP pretending we're physicists, and field theorists on the cutting edge, when all it takes is a high school student who knows what's what.
Where is the acceleration taken into account?johanfprins wrote:Two inertial reference frames Kp and K with clocks at their origins. The clocks are synchronized and the two reference frames move away from one another at a relative speed v.
The Lorentz transformation from Kp to K is given by:
x=gamma*(xp+v*tp) and t=gamma*(tp+(v/c^2)*xp)
The Lorentz transformation from K to Kp is given by:
xp=gamma*(x-v*t) and tp=gamma*(t-(v/c^2)*x)
Clock in Kp remains at position xp=0. When time on this clock is tp, the transformed position x(0) and time t of this clock within K are thus given by:
x(0)=gamma*(v*tp) and t=gamma*(tp): from which it follows that:
x(0)=v*t
Clock in K remains at position x=0. When time on this clock is t, the transformed position xp(0) and time tp of this clock within Kp are thus given by:
xp(0)=gamma*(-v*t) and tp=gamma*(t) from which it follows that:
xp(0)=-v*tp
Now if one of the two clocks are taken on a journey with varying speed v so that it eventually returns to meet up and stop within the other clock's reference frame, the distance between the clocks can only have a single value at any instant in time on either clock during this whole journey. This means that for the time tp on the clock in Kp which gives xp(0) =-v*tp, there must be a time t on the clock within K that gives a distance x(0)=v*t so that x(0)=-xp(0). This demands that after the clocks meet up again, they MUST have that t=tp. If not, it means that the Lorentz transformation is violated and the Special Theory of Relativity is wrong.
Thus IF the flying clock experiments are correct, as claimed on this thread, then it means that Einstein’s Special theory of Relativity must be wrong. Either Hafele and Keating and those that followed them made a stupendous physics breakthrough, or they obtained what they wanted to obtain: I suspect that the latter is the case; but am open to an alternative theory to Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
Stop there!johanfprins wrote:Two inertial reference frames Kp and K with clocks at their origins. The clocks are synchronized and the two reference frames move away from one another at a relative speed v.
The Lorentz transformation from Kp to K is given by:
x=gamma*(xp+v*tp) and t=gamma*(tp+(v/c^2)*xp)
The Lorentz transformation from K to Kp is given by:
xp=gamma*(x-v*t) and tp=gamma*(t-(v/c^2)*x)
Clock in Kp remains at position xp=0. When time on this clock is tp, the transformed position x(0) and time t of this clock within K are thus given by:
x(0)=gamma*(v*tp) and t=gamma*(tp): from which it follows that:
x(0)=v*t
Clock in K remains at position x=0. When time on this clock is t, the transformed position xp(0) and time tp of this clock within Kp are thus given by:
xp(0)=gamma*(-v*t) and tp=gamma*(t) from which it follows that:
xp(0)=-v*tp
Now if one of the two clocks are taken on a journey with varying speed v
No, the distance between the clocks relative to (any) given frame can only have a single value at any instant in time on either clock.so that it eventually returns to meet up and stop within the other clock's reference frame, the distance between the clocks can only have a single value at any instant in time on either clock during this whole journey.
OK, in Kp there will be such a time tp as measured by its clock. I assume the v here is the initial v between the FORs, not the different v at other points in time. The same spatial separation measured by the observer in K will not have the same distance, because of LF contraction by gamma(v'). Where v' is the instantaneous velocity difference, not equal to v (because of the acceleration).This means that for the time tp on the clock in Kp which gives xp(0) =-v*tp, there must be a time t on the clock within K that gives a distance x(0)=v*t so that x(0)=-xp(0).
No - because above argument incorrect.
This demands that after the clocks meet up again, they MUST have that t=tp. If not, it means that the Lorentz transformation is violated and the Special Theory of Relativity is wrong.
This works only one way round. If I have what seems to me a very good argument that says Einstein + 1000s of physicists afterwards have all got it wrong, I can be pretty sure that I am making a mistake. But if i am pig-headed I may not admit it.GIThruster wrote:Betruger, you're sounding like an idiot.
Stop pretending you, or anyone else, can do extremely advanced physics just because you can do algebra.
You sound like a peevish and petulant child.
Johan is proposing to CORRECT EINSTEIN. You want to stand together with the delusional and demented, and pretend you have a clue?
Teemu wrote:Where is the acceleration taken into account?johanfprins wrote:Two inertial reference frames Kp and K with clocks at their origins. The clocks are synchronized and the two reference frames move away from one another at a relative speed v.
The Lorentz transformation from Kp to K is given by:
x=gamma*(xp+v*tp) and t=gamma*(tp+(v/c^2)*xp)
The Lorentz transformation from K to Kp is given by:
xp=gamma*(x-v*t) and tp=gamma*(t-(v/c^2)*x)
Clock in Kp remains at position xp=0. When time on this clock is tp, the transformed position x(0) and time t of this clock within K are thus given by:
x(0)=gamma*(v*tp) and t=gamma*(tp): from which it follows that:
x(0)=v*t
Clock in K remains at position x=0. When time on this clock is t, the transformed position xp(0) and time tp of this clock within Kp are thus given by:
xp(0)=gamma*(-v*t) and tp=gamma*(t) from which it follows that:
xp(0)=-v*tp
Now if one of the two clocks are taken on a journey with varying speed v so that it eventually returns to meet up and stop within the other clock's reference frame, the distance between the clocks can only have a single value at any instant in time on either clock during this whole journey. This means that for the time tp on the clock in Kp which gives xp(0) =-v*tp, there must be a time t on the clock within K that gives a distance x(0)=v*t so that x(0)=-xp(0). This demands that after the clocks meet up again, they MUST have that t=tp. If not, it means that the Lorentz transformation is violated and the Special Theory of Relativity is wrong.
Thus IF the flying clock experiments are correct, as claimed on this thread, then it means that Einstein’s Special theory of Relativity must be wrong. Either Hafele and Keating and those that followed them made a stupendous physics breakthrough, or they obtained what they wanted to obtain: I suspect that the latter is the case; but am open to an alternative theory to Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Evolu ... e_and_Time
http://physics.about.com/od/timetravel/ ... aradox.htm
Hyperbolic rotation has limitations of hyperbolic rotation.
No offense Tom, but you've been arguing a host of issues that are off issue, like the acceleration/dilation/scaling issue.tomclarke wrote: This works only one way round. If I have what seems to me a very good argument that says Einstein + 1000s of physicists afterwards have all got it wrong, I can be pretty sure that I am making a mistake. But if i am pig-headed I may not admit it.