Thread: Lorentz symmetry broken!

when utilizing a generalized Lorentz transformation that are not constant, then one could break down an event into infinitesimal events until we get inertial(ity). Taking the positions vectors into consideration, then we could make linear transformations at each point and glue them together on a base. The arguments are, if we make a synchronized observation of a fast moving event, by changing the coordinate base constantly, there will be a contradiction on the observation compared to an stationary observer. *On a whole both these observers could be seen as inertial while considering large distances to the event which makes the slightly rotating observer an inertial observer with good approximationFor full details see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ko...ahdaei/sandbox

Originally Posted by Koorosh

when utilizing a generalized Lorentz transformation that are not constant, then one could break down an event into infinitesimal events until we get inertial(ity). Taking the positions vectors into consideration, then we could make linear transformations at each point and glue them together on a base. The arguments are, if we make a synchronized observation of a fast moving event, by changing the coordinate base constantly, there will be a contradiction on the observation compared to an stationary observer. *On a whole both these observers could be seen as inertial while considering large distances to the event which makes the slightly rotating observer an inertial observer with good approximationFor full details see:
User:Koorosh.shahdaei/sandbox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, it isn't, you are spamming multiple forums with your erroneous ideas:
1. You are trying to compare the results from inertial frames with the results of non-inertial (rotating) frames . Surprise, surprise, they don't agree.
2. You are trying to disprove SR via a thought experiment. Only real experiments can falsify a theory, thought experiments cannot. Besides, the theory of your thought experiment is incorrect (go to point 1).

I have a question quote here On the Effect of the Motion of a Body upon the Velocity with which it is traversed by Light - Wikisource, the free online library an experiment which proved that the motion of the earth does not affect the refraction of light through a,prism however contrary to this if I rotate the earth fast enough I could change the,state the prism is in liquifying it thus no longer a prism?

No, it isn't, you are spamming multiple forums with your erroneous ideas:
1. You are trying to compare the results from inertial frames with the results of non-inertial (rotating) frames . Surprise, surprise, they don't agree.
2. You are trying to disprove SR via a thought experiment. Only real experiments can falsify a theory, thought experiments cannot. Besides, the theory of your thought experiment is incorrect (go to point 1).

P1 is pretty common misunderstanding, the whole argument it is not about that, It is suggested that a guage transformation used in combination with infinitesimal events which can make up inertial frames which then are transformed linearly each, the gauge part which is non linear doesn't impact our inertial frame under observation, the physical content should be the same, but here on a broader picture, the infinitesimal rotation would not cause such effect which would contradict quantities like mass, length and time, but in this case it does. Normally the rotating frame can also observe Lorentz effects, but not in this specific case, as the very slow rotating frame gets analogous result compared to a co-moving frame.

Originally Posted by Koorosh

P1 is pretty common misunderstanding, the whole argument it is not about that, It is suggested that a guage transformation used in combination with infinitesimal events which can make up inertial frames which then are transformed linearly each, the gauge part which is non linear doesn't impact our inertial frame under observation, the physical content should be the same, but here on a broader picture, the infinitesimal rotation would not cause such effect which would contradict quantities like mass, length and time, but in this case it does. Normally the rotating frame can also observe Lorentz effects, but not in this specific case, as the very slow rotating frame gets analogous result compared to a co-moving frame.

To demonstrate that you have no clue what you're talking about, how about presenting some actual mathematics to "support" your assertion? Then we can show you specifically how what you're claiming is utter bollocks.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Koorosh

P1 is pretty common misunderstanding, the whole argument it is not about that, It is suggested that a guage transformation used in combination with infinitesimal events which can make up inertial frames which then are transformed linearly each, the gauge part which is non linear doesn't impact our inertial frame under observation, the physical content should be the same, but here on a broader picture, the infinitesimal rotation would not cause such effect which would contradict quantities like mass, length and time, but in this case it does. Normally the rotating frame can also observe Lorentz effects, but not in this specific case, as the very slow rotating frame gets analogous result compared to a co-moving frame.

To demonstrate that you have no clue what you're talking about, how about presenting some actual mathematics to "support" your assertion? Then we can show you specifically how what you're claiming is utter bollocks.

You can refer to the link provided.

Originally Posted by Koorosh

You can refer to the link provided.

It is my policy not to reward spammers by going to their sites. Please present your case here.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Koorosh

You can refer to the link provided.

It is my policy not to reward spammers by going to their sites. Please present your case here.

Regarding the spam, actually it was an accusation brought up by a member, it is a wiki site, and lot's of wiki-web formatting, not sure you'll see all formulas and figures correctly. If still not convenient, I'll try making a copy past here.