Strange Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 10 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said: I asked you to confirm that in Fig 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 the lengths of the three distances are as follows:length (OV) = v, length (OC) = c, length (VC) = c - v This question does not have a "yes/no" answer. It depends which frame of reference you are using to measure OV, OC, VC and v. You appear to be using the same frame of reference for all of them, which is not useful if you want to show the difference between two frames of reference. Or you may be mixing frames of reference, it isn't clear, in which case no answer is possible. 1 minute ago, Ghideon said: No But that will do! 10 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said: Nothing else! You should not draw any other pictures. We talk about pictures I have drawn. You should not deviate from the subject. You should not ask any further questions. This is not deviating from the subject. It is attempting to explain the basic principles of SR yo you in order that you can understand the answer to your original question. You cannot dictate how people try to explain things to you. Otherwise you will never learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Slowak Posted June 6, 2019 Author Share Posted June 6, 2019 Answer to Strange, swansont, Ghideon Title to this thread is called: Special Relativity - SR - Lorentz transformations. I'm talking about the derivation of LT. In this phase of the review of SR we cannot talk about RS principles, time dilation and the like. It can happen later. I was looking to get a correct picture for SC3 in [7]. But you are not pedagogical in your progress! What I have described in Fig. 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 is so clear and simple that a student in the first year of high school would answer the question directly: Yes. If you all answer No, I will end this thread. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 4 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said: Title to this thread is called: Special Relativity - SR - Lorentz transformations. I'm talking about the derivation of LT. In this phase of the review of SR we cannot talk about RS principles, time dilation and the like. It can happen later. If you don't understand the invariance of c (and you don't) then it will be impossible for you to correctly derive the Lorentz transform (or understand existing derivations - which you don't). 4 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said: If you all answer No, I will end this thread. As you are unwilling to learn what the invariance of c means for different frames of reference, then we may as well close this thread. And you can give up any hope of understanding the Lorentz transform and SR. It is a shame, but unless you are willing to be open minded and learn, there isn't much anyone can do to help you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 37 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said: Answer to Strange, swansont, Ghideon: I asked you to confirm that in Fig 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 the lengths of the three distances are as follows:length (OV) = v, length (OC) = c, length (VC) = c - v Nothing else! You should not draw any other pictures. We talk about pictures I have drawn. You should not deviate from the subject. You should not ask any further questions. OK, I will rephrase. No. You are putting speeds on the x axis, which requires position or length Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said: I was looking to get a correct picture for SC3 in [7]. But you are not pedagogical in your progress! Thanks for feedback. Are there any specific parts of my last description (pictures 3a,3b,3c) that cold be improved? 11 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said: What I have described in Fig. 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 is so clear and simple that a student in the first year of high school would answer the question directly: Yes. No. Edited June 6, 2019 by Ghideon Spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Slowak Posted June 6, 2019 Author Share Posted June 6, 2019 3 hours ago, swansont said: Why are you plotting speeds on the x axis, and treating them like they are distances? An object (inertial reference system, IRS) moves on the x-axis to the right, toward +x. The IRS moves at a constant speed v m/s. At time t = 0, the IRS passes the point O on the x-axis. We measured the time in seconds. When the clock shows t = 1, the IRS passes the point V on the x-axis. Then the length of OV = v meters. It is quite obvious. We do not need to constantly use unit of measurement. We do it for the sake of simplicity! We say that the light moves at speed c but we know thatc = 300,000 km/s. Your question is unfounded, such things should be obvious! But you can answer the question of whether the length of the distance OV in this example is v? Yes or No. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 9 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said: Yes or No. ! Moderator Note I don't think you realize the disservice you're doing to yourself by restricting the way you learn from discussions. Requiring a physicist with the US Naval Observatory to answer yes or no questions on one of his areas of expertise isn't going to help you overcome your ignorance in this area. Why not take advantage of people who understand relativity better than you do, and have taught others successfully? After all, if what you claim is true, computers and GPS wouldn't work. Since they do, perhaps you're mistaken. That would explain your problems with SR much better than "everybody but me is wrong", don't you think? In any case, this is in the mainstream sections, and if you continue to soapbox about your misunderstandings, I'll have to move this to Speculations. If you can ask more questions (with answers deeper than yes or no), and take the replies on board, the thread can stay in a mainstream section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 52 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said: An object (inertial reference system, IRS) moves on the x-axis to the right, toward +x. The IRS moves at a constant speed v m/s. At time t = 0, the IRS passes the point O on the x-axis. We measured the time in seconds. When the clock shows t = 1, the IRS passes the point V on the x-axis. Then the length of OV = v meters. It is quite obvious. We do not need to constantly use unit of measurement. We do it for the sake of simplicity! We say that the light moves at speed c but we know thatc = 300,000 km/s. Your question is unfounded, such things should be obvious! But you can answer the question of whether the length of the distance OV in this example is v? Yes or No. You should not label points using such confusing nomenclature. It’s bad practice. c is the speed of light. v is a speed or velocity. Saying the length of a vector is v, or c, implies it is a velocity vector, not a displacement At one point you say S is stationary and later you say it’s moving. This is inconsistent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Slowak Posted June 6, 2019 Author Share Posted June 6, 2019 29 minutes ago, Phi for All said: ! Moderator Note I don't think you realize the disservice you're doing to yourself by restricting the way you learn from discussions. Requiring a physicist with the US Naval Observatory to answer yes or no questions on one of his areas of expertise isn't going to help you overcome your ignorance in this area. Why not take advantage of people who understand relativity better than you do, and have taught others successfully? After all, if what you claim is true, computers and GPS wouldn't work. Since they do, perhaps you're mistaken. That would explain your problems with SR much better than "everybody but me is wrong", don't you think? In any case, this is in the mainstream sections, and if you continue to soapbox about your misunderstandings, I'll have to move this to Speculations. If you can ask more questions (with answers deeper than yes or no), and take the replies on board, the thread can stay in a mainstream section. When you say "your ignorance in this area" then you have judged me in advance and you hurt me as others have done before. I do not understand this. Here I acknowledge that I do not understand: what are you for people who use such methods on an open site. You cannot approve another opinion, not even discuss. Why? The fact that I have begun to ask clear questions about small things is because you deviate all the time from the main problem. I want to pursue my reasoning. I don't want to hear other things. But it is enough to say: You are wrong! But then you have to justify! You talk about computers and GPS. What does SR have to do with computers? I've never heard that! Can you refer to the bibliography where I can read about how SR is used in GPS. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 Just now, Jan Slowak said: When you say "your ignorance in this area" then you have judged me in advance It is purely based on the evidence you have presented here. You very obviously do not understand the basics of either the mathematics or the physics. 1 minute ago, Jan Slowak said: What does SR have to do with computers? Quantum field theory. 1 minute ago, Jan Slowak said: Can you refer to the bibliography where I can read about how SR is used in GPS. SR is a special case of GR. GPS uses a (very simplified) GR calculation to account for the difference in gravitational potential and difference in speed. The effect of the difference in speed can be calculated using SR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 You have three dozen posts. You were not judged in advance. You were judged based on the (lack of) quality of your posts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Slowak Posted June 6, 2019 Author Share Posted June 6, 2019 6 minutes ago, Strange said: It is purely based on the evidence you have presented here. You very obviously do not understand the basics of either the mathematics or the physics. Quantum field theory. SR is a special case of GR. GPS uses a (very simplified) GR calculation to account for the difference in gravitational potential and difference in speed. The effect of the difference in speed can be calculated using SR. Can you refer to the bibliography where I can read about how SR is used in GPS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 2 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said: Can you refer to the bibliography where I can read about how SR is used in GPS? https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2003-1 Plenty more if you Google “relativity in gps” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Slowak Posted June 6, 2019 Author Share Posted June 6, 2019 Just now, swansont said: https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2003-1 Plenty more if you Google “relativity in gps” Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 4 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said: Can you refer to the bibliography where I can read about how SR is used in GPS? Here is the first link from a search: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html Quote However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy. Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion [2]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Slowak Posted June 6, 2019 Author Share Posted June 6, 2019 33 minutes ago, swansont said: You should not label points using such confusing nomenclature. It’s bad practice. c is the speed of light. v is a speed or velocity. Saying the length of a vector is v, or c, implies it is a velocity vector, not a displacement At one point you say S is stationary and later you say it’s moving. This is inconsistent If we talk about speeds then c and v have the unit of measure km/s.If we talk about distance then c and v have the unit of measure km. distance = speed * time →c km/s * 1 s = c kmv km/s * 1 s = v km It should be as simple as possible. Things that are implied need not be drawn or written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufofrog Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said: If we talk about speeds then c and v have the unit of measure km/s.If we talk about distance then c and v have the unit of measure km. distance = speed * time →c km/s * 1 s = c kmv km/s * 1 s = v km Velocity never has the units of km. Velocity x time does not equal velocity. Are you sure you are a mathematician??? Edited June 6, 2019 by Bufofrog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Slowak Posted June 6, 2019 Author Share Posted June 6, 2019 3 minutes ago, Bufofrog said: Velocity never has the units of km. Velocity x time does not equal velocity. Are you sure you are a mathmetician??? 4 minutes ago, Bufofrog said: Velocity never has the units of km. Velocity x time does not equal velocity. Are you sure you are a mathmetician??? Please read carefully what I wrote! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufofrog Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 3 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said: Please read carefully what I wrote! I did and it's absurd. You really want to do an analysis where v is a velocity and a distance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 56 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said: If we talk about speeds then c and v have the unit of measure km/s.If we talk about distance then c and v have the unit of measure km. distance = speed * time →c km/s * 1 s = c kmv km/s * 1 s = v km It should be as simple as possible. Things that are implied need not be drawn or written. Use vt and ct, as everyone else who understands relativity does. Things you think are implied are not always obvious. Nobody can read your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Slowak Posted June 6, 2019 Author Share Posted June 6, 2019 26 minutes ago, Bufofrog said: I did and it's absurd. You really want to do an analysis where v is a velocity and a distance? If you do not understand what I want to say in the pictures Fig. 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 then I can not help you. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 11 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said: If you do not understand what I want to say in the pictures Fig. 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 then I can not help you. This thread was about you asking for help from others. Which you then rejected because it disagrees with your (mistaken) preconceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 If you won’t use standard terminology it will be hard to help you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Slowak Posted June 6, 2019 Author Share Posted June 6, 2019 15 minutes ago, swansont said: Use vt and ct, as everyone else who understands relativity does. Things you think are implied are not always obvious. Nobody can read your mind. If you do not understand what I mean in the pictures Fig. 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 and if you have problems interpreting when using speed and when using distance then I wonder if you understand what the following equation is about:E=mc²For the most part, they do not stand which units of measurement you use! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 1 minute ago, Jan Slowak said: If you do not understand what I mean in the pictures Fig. 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 and if you have problems interpreting when using speed and when using distance then I wonder if you understand what the following equation is about:E=mc²For the most part, they do not stand which units of measurement you use! Because you are very confused about the theory, you need to be careful to be completely explicit about what you are saying, and therefore in the notation you use. It is too easy to fall into the trap of mixing frames of reference when you fail to use symbols correctly. For example, equating v to a distance depends on the frame of reference. The distance vt is different from the distance vt'. (And we can now ignore your complaints about taking threads off topic because you have introduced E=mc2. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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