joigus Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 42 minutes ago, Abouzar Bahari said: span widget When the S is stationary and S’ is moving, what you are saying is that the term x'=(x-vt) in the Lorentz formula is in the Galilean-Newtonian mechanics and does not relate to SR. OK, this is true. In Newtonian mechanics, when we use the negative quantities for v, you will use x'=(x+vt), instead. Example: x= 10 m t= 2 s v (S’ velocity) = 3 m/s x'=(x-vt)= 10-(3)(2)=4 m For v= -3 m/s --> x'=(x+vt)=10+(3)(2)=16 m However, in Lorentz transformations, we are not going to use x'=γ (x+vt) and t'=γ(t+vx/c2) in the case that S’ is moving with the speed v to the left (for instance v = -108 m/s) and in any papers, texts, books, etc about the SR, nobody use such terms for Lorentz equations, in the case that S’ is moving to the left. Not Lorentz, nor Einstein, nor any other people. All the times, everybody use the main formulas, whether the S’ frame is moving to the right or to the left. Have you asked of yourself, why? That is because the Lorentz formulations have been invented to consider the light speed to be constant to c when it is propagated spherically for both S and S’ frame: metrics invariance for both S and S’. Before I make an example, I will derive the Lorentz equations when a light signal is propagated spherically : 𝑥 2 + 𝑦 2 + 𝑧 2 − 𝑐 2 𝑡2 = 𝑥 ′2 + 𝑦 ′2 + 𝑧 ′2 − 𝑐 2 𝑡 ′2 = 0 --> x=ct , x'=ct' x'=γ (x-vt) --> ct'=γ (ct-vt) x=γ (x'+vt' ) --> ct=γ (ct'+vt') 𝑦 = 𝑦’ 𝑧 = 𝑧’ t=γt' (1+v/c) t'=γt (1-v/c) t'=γ^2 t' (1-v/c)(1+v/c) γ=1/√(1-v2/c2 ) For instance, suppose the S frame is stationary and the S’ frame is moving to the left with a constant velocity v = 108 m/s. When the center of coordinates (zero point) of these frames is coincided with together, a light signal is propagated from this point spherically (suppose in the figure 1, S' is moving to the left instead of moving to the right). At this moment, the clocks of both S and S’ observers which have already adjusted together, start to work. We want to calculate the light coordinate in both S and S’ frames after 2 ms. In the S frame: t=2 ms x=ct=3×108×2×10-3=6×105 m =600 km In the S’ frame: with employing the Lorentz transformations, we obtain: x'=γ (x-vt)=1.06 (600-108×2×10-3)=424 km t'=γ(t-vx/c2 )=1.41 s Graphically, you can find that the quantities we have achieved with these formulas for the light signal coordinate for S’ is not true quantities for positive axes of x’. However, since the light is propagated spherically, for negative axes of x’, it becomes true. I mean when the x=ct=-600 km --> x'=-424 km Therefore, we can neglect the sign of x and v in Lorentz transformations and always use the main formulas, whether S’ is moving to the right or left. But if you persist to use x'=γ (x+vt), when the S’ is going to the left, it is OK. However, when you reverse the formula to x=γ (x'-vt'), you must not to apply v reversal, as Dr. Rindler says, to make them symmetrical. If so, you would find γ=1/(1+v/c) which is less than 1 and so, your length would be elongated and time becomes faster. Now, you can go and find something funnier. First, the light speed is a universal constant c = 3*108 m/s. It is not equals to 1. So, when you use the c in the equations, if you want to simplify your mathematical equations, you can use c=1 instead. However, when you want it as a physical constant paprameter, you are not allowed to use c=1. For instance, in the Lorentz equations β= v/c is a number between 0 to 1. But if you put c=1, β= v/c is a number equals to v which could be much larger than 1. Therefore, it is wrong to use c=1 in the Lorentz formulas. Second, as a physicist, you are supposed to simplify the equations not to make them more complicated by copy and paste other derivations of them for electrons inside the magnetic fields and we have from the Internet. Yes, absolutely there are other derivations of the Lorentz transformations in 4 dimensions. But, I am using the simple and completely applicable original Lorentz equations only for x direction, intentionally to explain why these equations are not symmetrical: You have the equation x'=γ (x-vt), when you reverse it, you will find x=γ (x'+vt) , these two equations are not the same, so they are not symmetrical. You have the equation t'=γ(t-vx/c2 ), when you reverse it you will find t=γ(t'+(vx')/c2), these two equations are not the same, so they are not symmetrical. We are not allowed to change the v sign, when we reverse the equation. Because we are performing just an arithmetic job, not changing the observer. Third, after a PhD in nuclear physics and Ms. And Bs. In engineering and writing many outstanding papers that published in the ISI journals and teaching several years in the university and 10 years of hard studying about the SR (at least 200 papers and 20 books) and deep thinking and learning, yes I can not understand the bullshits you add to my comments like "Λ(−v)Λ(v)A=IA means the symmetry of two equations" or γ' or other wrong statements of yours. But, what I understand is that I am talking to some young boys who ever in BS or lesser period and try to discuss with others without even study and learn their papers. This is crazy. I taught I am discussing with some literate people not some dogmatic people who try to speak fast and loudly without even studying and hearing the words of the person in front of them. If I knew, I did not discuss with you never. · Please search in the internet and find the symmetry means. If you can prove that Λ(−v)Λ(v)A=IA means the symmetry of two equations, I will accept your words, or else, please shut your mouth and first, study, then talk. · My attempt is not anti-relativity completely. I have accepted the invariant of the Lorentz equations, but, I do not agree with that they are symmetrical. · All the experimental tests agree with the above-mentioned claims. For instance, the atomic clock inside the moving high-speed airplane is dilated with the gamma factor, but the stationary atomic clock on the earth is not dilated. The researchers test the Lorentz formulas for the moving frames and get results for the Lorenz invariance of the inertial frames. However, they have ignored to test the Lorentz formulas from the view of the moving observer who thinks he is at rest according to what the SR says. Therefore, what they actually achieved is the Lorentz invariance not the symmetry of the inertial frames. · My paper after 5 month from its publication by a refereed journal was taken into account much more than I expected. In your forum, you mentors do not allow the others to speak. You just want to speak what you have learnt already in your books. But the real researchers are open- minded persons who do not think that all the matters in the books are true. They are finding the false theories. Just search how many famous scientists are completely or partially against relativity (you can find it in my paper). · About what you said I do not want to understand the negative value in the equation, read my answers to other. · But, whenever, some dogmatic people are dominant on the world of science, they could not be successful to talk and make their theories worldwide spreading. I do not want to say the journals should publish bullshits. But, I want to say the new theories if they are elaborated scientifically, must be published. Recently a published research showed that the velocity of the progress of science decreased rapidly in recent years. The reason is exactly those dogmatic people in the world of science today. Unfortunately, the people like you, when they have not enough logic in their hands (mathematical or physical logic), try to humiliate the person against them. That is the method of not literate and not civilized persons and I am so familiar with such people. I again recommend you to study more and then come and discuss with honorable people. Just search my name then open your mouth and say bullshits. -1. You would be well advised to stop insulting people and clean up your own house. Neither one of us is "dominant in the world of science." As to you, you are nowhere near the world of science. Reported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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 account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now