Cinci: Harry, Harry, Harry. You can¡¦t be serious. I cite another paper of yours below:


http://www.wbabin.net/science/ricker13.pdf

"Einstein¡¦s False Derivation Of Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction
By Harry H. Ricker III email: kc3mx@Yahoo.com
1.0 Introduction


5.0 Proof That Einstein¡¦s Method Is Incorrect
It is well known that Einstein¡¦s method produces a contradiction. The contradiction is one of the most celebrated results of the special theory of relativity. The contradiction arises as follows. A rod whose length measure is defined as L0 in the stationary frame is placed in motion so that is has velocity v relative to that frame. We call the stationary frame S and the moving frame S¡¦ as above. Einstein claims, as discussed above, that the rest length in frame S¡¦ is the same as in S. So using primes to denote the different rest lengths, we have that L0¡¥=L0. This implies the transformation law is x¡¦=x.¡¨
*************
Cinci: The rest length is the rest length. It doesn¡¦t change because yo move to different frame. You see length contraction when you measure the length of a rod ina moving frame with a meter stick in the stationary frame. Your x = x¡¦ transformation is your idea, not Einstein¡¦s.
**************************

Harry's paper - cont: ¡§This law is contradicted by the result which is deduced in equations (4) and (5), i.e., L0=ƒÒ−ƒ¡L0¡¥. Therefore, there is a contradiction. This is clearly shown by the fact that Einstein¡¦s assumption of step 3 is contradicted by equation (11).¡¨

*********************
Cinci: The only contradiction here is yousaying x = x¡¦. Einstein never said it.
*********************************


Harry's paper - cont: ¡§Furthermore, it is clear that the famous result of Lorentz contraction is contradicted by the use of the correct method of section 4.0. ¡§

******************
Cinci: I don¡¦t know what you think you proved in 4. But I know you wrote these relationships for t=0:

(11) x¡¦=_(x-vt)=_x
(12) t¡¦=_(t-vx/c2)= -_vx/c2
(13) x=_(x¡¦+vt¡¦)=_x¡¦(1-v2/c2)=_-1x¡¦
(14) t=_(t¡¦+vx¡¦/c2)=0, therefore t¡¦=-vx¡¦/c2.

I¡¦ll only deal with (14). You can figure out the rest. Your assertion that
t¡¦ = -vx¡¦/cc is true as far as it goes, but it¡¦s only try for t=0. The derivation of the Lorentz transformations in the form you normally see them includes the restrictions that x¡¦=0 and t¡¦=0 when t=0 (x=0 also). At any other value of t, t¡¦ does not equal ¡Vvx¡¦/cc. If you want to derive the length contraction formula from the Lorentz transformations it¡¦s done like this:

(1) X¡¦ = (X ¡V vT) / (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

(2) Y¡¦ = Y

(3) Z¡¦ = Z

(4) T¡¦ = (T-xv/c^2) / (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

In another thread, Analyzing the Michelson-Morley Experiment I derived the length contraction formula as Fitzgerald and Lorentz did independently around the turn of the 19the centruy. They suggested that if length of the arm of the Michelson-Morley experiment contracted when along the direction of flight, it would explain the null result of the experiment. Their forumla is

L = Lo(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5

where Lo is the uncontracted length (rest length in modern parlance) and L is the contracted length.

So here, I will derive the same formula using eq (1) above, the Lorentz transformation.

Assume that two points are identified along the moving axis, X'. Let them be X'2 and X'1 where X'2 > X'1. The distance between these two points is Lo, the rest distance in the X' frame.

Lo = X'2 - X'1

Now substituting eq (1) yields

Lo = (X2 ¡V vT) / (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2) - (X1 ¡V vT) / (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

Lo = (X2 - X1)) / (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

Obviously, X2 - X1 is the length of Lo as measured in the stationary frame and we call it L, so

Lo = L/(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

or

L = Lo(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

As they say, QED.
******************

Well, Cinci; you've done your homework; congratulations!

I guess Harry can't say they're just 'simple contradiction' comments anymore...

AAF your are mistaken. Cincirob doesn't get the math so he is still claiming I am wrong. I clearly am not as the math is prefectly correct and Cincirob is confused.
Cincirob doesnt get the math so he cant say I am wrong. My math is correct.

Harry: AAF your are mistaken. Cincirob doesn't get the math so he is still claiming I am wrong. I clearly am not as the math is prefectly correct and Cincirob is confused. Cincirob doesnt get the math so he cant say I am wrong. My math is correct.

cinci: You have accused me of just being "negative". So I put up the goods and all you can say is your "math is correct". Wow, impressive! Do you think that being "positive" gives you a pass? Fuggedaboutit.

But read it again, I didn't say your math was wrong, it just doesn't mean anything. Your assertion that t' = -vx'/cc is correct but only at t' = 0 and x' = 0 which is a trivial case. You haven't defended that at all.

The other thing you did was conclude that because the rest length of a rod in any inertial frame was the same, that Einstein's (and therefore Lorentz's) transformation should be x = x'. Then you pretend that Eisntein said this. Come on, defend your stuff or acknowledge it's wrong.
***********************************

Naw, you don't pay attention anyway.

Naw, you don't pay attention anyway.

Curt: May I comment? Naw, you don't pay attention anyway.

cinci: Harry told me I didn't comment and now look where he is.
******************************

Cincirob, The Kennedy-Thorndike experiment claims to refute evidence for length contraction which is based on the analysis you give above. So your agument catering to this conclusion is refuted by experiment. You certainly should have known that the relativity theory embraces this result as valid. So your argument based on the Michelson-Morley experiment is invalid as you give it above. Relativists accept the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment as refuting evidence for length contraction deduced from the Michelson-Morley experiment. Hence there is no length contraction in relativity as you claim.

DaveT: Cincirob, The Kennedy-Thorndike experiment claims to refute evidence for length contraction which is based on the analysis you give above.

cinci: As I understand it K-T was an experiment to test for time dilation and is considered to be successful. The sources I have looked at which include this one, http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html, say the K-T confirms special relativity and it also says M-M confirms relativity.

DaveT: So your agument catering to this conclusion is refuted by experiment.

cinci: You'll have to do better than just saying it. What reference do you have?
********************************

DaveT: You certainly should have known that the relativity theory embraces this result as valid. So your argument based on the Michelson-Morley experiment is invalid as you give it above.

cinci: I agree that relativitists have embraced the K-T experiment as well as the M-M but I'm not aware that they think they conflict or that length contraction doesn't occur. You'll have to make your case. I've actually done the analysis for Michelson-Morley for myself an find it completely compelling.
****************************

DaveTY: Relativists accept the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment as refuting evidence for length contraction deduced from the Michelson-Morley experiment. Hence there is no length contraction in relativity as you claim.

cinci: I haven't found anything that agrees with this assessment. I think relativists believe both experiments and since they are testing different aspects of realtivity it is difficult to see how one refutes the other. In addition, modern versions of the M-M have been done that confirm the null result (and therefore length contraction) to very a high degree of accuracy. Time dilation has also been confirmed by separate experiments. I don't see any evidence of what you are saying in the experimental evidence I can find or in the opinion of any relativist I have read.

But make your case, I'm listening.
******************************************

That "different aspects of "relativity" can't be seen to contradict each other!

Using this logic, I can get away with. . . .You name it.

Curt: That "different aspects of "relativity" can't be seen to contradict each other!

Using this logic, I can get away with. . . .You name it.

cinci: "Different aspects" of "relativity" don't conflict with each other. The theory is self-consistent and creates no paradoxes. Is taht what you're talking about.
*******************************

Cincirob, For someone who professes to be a supporter of relativity it is obvious you dont know much about that subject. You dont understand the K-T experiment. I am not a teacher in relativity. Take a college course on the subject and come back when you know something.

Um, the MM experiment produced a null result, the anomalous signal reported was a result of taking an average of the data and the noise within it, which seemed to be important. In actuality the margin of error and correction which would be needed shows that there was no amazing disproof of SR, which makes your statement about the KT as a disproof of MM baffling.

Have YOU actually studied the subject?

Dave T: I Am Not Going to Teach You The K-T Experiment Theory Cincirob.

cinci: Seems to me that's exactly what you're trying to do.
****************************

Dave T: For someone who professes to be a supporter of relativity it is obvious you dont know much about that subject. You dont understand the K-T experiment. I am not a teacher in relativity.

cinci: Well not a good one so far.
*************************

Dave T: Take a college course on the subject and come back when you know something.

cinci: I've given you references that say both K-T and M-M support relativity so it seems logical to me that they can't refute each other. I asked you for a reference for what you're saying but it's becoming obvious that you don't have one or you would have given it to me so it seems logical to me that you don't have one. I've been googling the internet to find any source that agrees with you but I haven't found anything.

I think you're just blowing smoke. A lot of anti-relativists try to scare me away with this condescending attitude crap.....sorry, it won't work. You'll have to produce some supporting evidence.

Re: Harry, Harry, Harry
September 24 2008, 9:39 AM

cinci,
I think you're just blowing smoke. A lot of anti-relativists try to scare me away with this condescending attitude crap.....sorry, it won't work. You'll have to produce some supporting evidence.

You want proof yet all you do is ignore that truth when it's given to you. You only accept the truth of the people who already agree with you. You expect Harry and others to use Einstein's maths to prove Einstein wrong. Time/speed solves for distance, not time, time/(speed/speed) solves for ratio, not time. If you insist that time/(speed/speed) solves for time dilation then it must be a ratio of that time dilation and therefor the time dilation must apply at the same ratio to V and C! Either way Einstein's maths are wrong.

If you dislike condescension then stop acting the fool, you should consider yourself lucky that the people here even respond to you and, given that they have to talk down to your level is another plus for you.

cinci: I think you're just blowing smoke. A lot of anti-relativists try to scare me away with this condescending attitude crap.....sorry, it won't work. You'll have to produce some supporting evidence.

Innominate: You want proof yet all you do is ignore that truth when it's given to you.

cinci: Just because Dave T says something I have to believe it's the truth? Give me a break. Even the TRUTH needs suporting evidence. I don't believe relativity because somebody SAYS it's a good theory. I have looked at the experimental evidence.
******************************

Innominate: You only accept the truth of the people who already agree with you. You expect Harry and others to use Einstein's maths to prove Einstein wrong.

cinci: No, you cannot use math to prove Einstein right or wrong and I have never asked anybody to do that. Only experimental evidence can disprove a theory.
*********************

Innominate: Time/speed solves for distance, not time, time/(speed/speed) solves for ratio, not time. If you insist that time/(speed/speed) solves for time dilation then it must be a ratio of that time dilation and therefor the time dilation must apply at the same ratio to V and C!

cinci: I don't think I've insisted on any of these things, primarily because whatever you're trying to say isn't clear enough to tell what you're saying. Want to try it again with maybe an equation thrown in?
**************************

Innominate: Either way Einstein's maths are wrong.

cinci: You can only show that Einstein's math is wrong if you predict an experimental outcome with it and find that the prediction is wrong. In more than 100 years, that has not happened.
*******************

Innominate: If you dislike condescension then stop acting the fool, you should consider yourself lucky that the people here even respond to you and, given that they have to talk down to your level is another plus for you.

cinci: Oh, I don't dislike condescension. It's very informative. It let's me know the people using it are out of real ideas. If they had any real ideas they would present them instead of being condescending.
**********************************************

Re: Harry, Harry, Harry
September 24 2008, 12:58 PM

cinci,
You can only show that Einstein's math is wrong if you predict an experimental outcome with it and find that the prediction is wrong. In more than 100 years, that has not happened.

I just did but you don't read very well; "If you insist that time/(speed/speed) solves for time dilation then it must be a ratio of that time dilation and therefor the time dilation must apply at the same ratio to V and C!" That statement is a prediction and that prediction states that, time dilation must apply to C as it applies to V, at their respective ratio, where V stands for the speed of a moving body as per Einstein's On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. Einstein may fudge the maths but he can't fudge the solutions.

You are here arguing with us yet there are hundreds of submission listed at this site alone that give you all the maths needed to falsify SR, why do you not try and pick their papers apart, there is a link to submit comments on any subject you wish. You are going to have to roll us over one at a time. So, maybe you have the time but we have the numbers and I guarandamntee I will be one of the last to go.

Every paper I've seen that claims to falsify SR does so on the assumption that the speed of light varies, and time outside of the now does not exist.

Every single one, to a T.

Now, the speed of light itself being variable, get this, WOULD NOT FALSIFY SR.

If the speed of light could change from one situation to another, as long as light still enjoyed accurate/optimal interaction with time, you will still always measure whatever the current speed of light was, no matter what your motion was.

SR is a deep statement about the nature of time, and how it is tied to motion.
GR is a deep statement about the nature of motion, and how it is tied to gravity, which is thus tied to space, and through all of that, time.

Where does this idea that time doesn't exist outside of the now come from anyway?

innominate: cinci,
You can only show that Einstein's math is wrong if you predict an experimental outcome with it and find that the prediction is wrong. In more than 100 years, that has not happened.

I just did but you don't read very well; "If you insist that time/(speed/speed) solves for time dilation then it must be a ratio of that time dilation and therefor the time dilation must apply at the same ratio to V and C!"

You are here arguing with us yet there are hundreds of submission listed at this site alone that give you all the maths needed to falsify SR, why do you not try and pick their papers apart, there is a link to submit comments on any subject you wish. You are going to have to roll us over one at a time. So, maybe you have the time but we have the numbers and I guarandamntee I will be one of the last to go.

cinci: You're right, I don't read what you wrote very well. Now all we have to do is decide if it's my reading ability or your writing ability.

The time dilation formula is t' = t(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5. I have no idea what "time/(speed/speed) solves for time dilation" means. It isn't the equation above and it isn't an equation at all and it appears to say that you think I'm dividing time by the ratio of two speeds which is not true in the equation above. So you need to explain what that means.

Your next statement is "therefore the time dilation must apply at the same ratio to V and C!" doesn't clear anything up.

Here is your explanation of thetwo comments above:

innominate: That statement is a prediction and that prediction states that, time dilation must apply to C as it applies to V, at their respective ratio, where V stands for the speed of a moving body as per Einstein's On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.

cinci: No, the statement isn't an predictin. Write an equation. That would be a prediction.

The phrase "time dilation must apply to C as it applies to V" is a bit mysterious but it appears that you are contradicting the seoncd postulate. Is that what you mean?
*******************************

innominate: Einstein may fudge the maths but he can't fudge the solutions.

cinci: Einstein didn't fudge the equations and you haven't even written one.
********************************

Re: Harry, Harry, Harry
September 24 2008, 3:40 PM

Cinci,
Einstein didn't fudge the equations and you haven't even written one.

Using words in place of symbols is perfectly acceptable math. I stated a math equation and I stated it properly, I am right and you know I am right you just scraped the bottom of the excuse barrel. It is Einstein who predicts that time dilation applies by ratio to C with the use of symbols. In maths, if it is part of the problem then it must share its part of the solution.

You misunderstood the use of C there.

C is the universal yardstick, it is chosen as an example which accurately interacts with time.

Distance for a beam of light exactly correlates to Duration.

Distance for a body with rest mass requires the adjustment given by the equations to represent the Duration observed, compared to the actual Duration.

Cinci,
Einstein didn't fudge the equations and you haven't even written one.

innominate: Using words in place of symbols is perfectly acceptable math. I stated a math equation and I stated it properly, I am right and you know I am right you just scraped the bottom of the excuse barrel. It is Einstein who predicts that time dilation applies by ratio to C with the use of symbols. In maths, if it is part of the problem then it must share its part of the solution.

cinci: I wrote Einstein's equation for time dilation. It is t' = t(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5. If you don't think that's correct, then tell me what you think is correct.

And no, you did not write an equation. Thsi is not an equation: "If you insist that time/(speed/speed) solves for time dilation then it must be a ratio of that time dilation and therefor the time dilation must apply at the same ratio to V and C!" And I have not insisted that "time/(speed/speed)solves for time dilation". I don't know what that means and I'm beginning to think you don't either.

Equations have equal signs in them. If you do equations in words then the word equals should appear. Your statement does neither.

I showed that what you wrote that implied something different that the equation above. Where's you explanation of that difference?

Everybody challenges me to show my math but none of you are willing to show yours.
*******************************