Notices
Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: New Train Embankment Experiment

  1. #1 New Train Embankment Experiment 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    20
    Hi everyone.

    This is a modification to the train-embankment experiment. I am hoping someone can solve this problem.

    Assume when M and M' are co-located, lightning strikes their common location. There is also an observer B' in the negative direction of Mí.

    After some time elapses in each frame, B' and M become co-located.

    Considering only the negative and positive x directions, the goal is to determine all of the special relativity truths for the lightning light beams at the instant M and B' are co-located.

    1) The light beams are equidistant from M in the M frame. So, label these locations as (d,0,0) and (-d,0,0).
    2) The light beams are equidistant from Mí in the Mí frame. So, label these as (dí,0,0) and (-dí,0,0)

    To make it simple, label the common frame event of Bí and M being co-located as P. So, P is true if and only if Bí and M are co-located. Below are additional truths.

    3) If P is true in M, then P is true in Mí.
    4) If P is true in Mí, then P is true in M.
    5) Therefore, if P is false in Mí then P is false in M.
    6) Also, if P is false in M then P is false in Mí.

    Next, use the lorentz transformations on (d,0,0). Note, for this case t=d/c. Then , so . Now assume . Then, P is false for M' since P is only true for the Mí frame if the light beam is at (dí,0,0). But, P is true for M iff P is true for Mí. So, that means P is false for M. But, we used (d,0,0) for the lorentz transforms which means P is true for M. So, if then P is true for M and false for M, which is a contradiction.

    The same argument holds for applying lorentz transformations to (-d,0,0) with . It ends up as above if then P is true for M and false for M.

    So, there is only one possibility left, and . Then, from above, since and , then and . So, and . Combine the two and you get . Simplification leads to , which is a contradiction.

    The same conditions result if you apply the lorentz transformations to (dí,0,0) and (-dí,0,0).

    So, it looks like nothing the lorentz transformations output can be true.

    Thus, it seems all the truths of special relativity canít hold true for this experiment when P is true.

    Can anyone make all the truths of special relativity hold true for this thought experiment?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    This is a modification to the train-embankment experiment. I am hoping someone can solve this problem.
    This appears to be very similar to what you have brought up here :

    Simultaneity

    That was answered for you in considerably detail, and in particular it was pointed out where the errors in your reasoning and understanding were. I am not sure what you are hoping to achieve by re-posting it here with slightly different numbers.

    So, it looks like nothing the lorentz transformations output can be true.
    The universe disagrees with you : Modern Tests of Relativity

    Thus, it seems all the truths of special relativity canít hold true for this experiment when P is true.
    Can anyone make all the truths of special relativity hold true for this thought experiment?
    Look, here's the thing - it is a very simple matter to proof mathematically that SR is entirely self-consistent, and that you cannot derive any contradictions from its axioms :

    General Proof that Special Relativity is Self-Consistent

    If you arrive at a contradiction, that means you made a mistake somewhere; hence, the question is not whether we can make SR fit your scenario, but rather whether you can find the error you evidently made. I suggest you once again read carefully what was already explained to you over on Physics Forums, and then consider this scenario again. You will readily find that there is of course no contradiction at all.

    I don't think I have the patience for another anti-relativity thread ( which is what this looks like to me ) at the moment - so for now I'll leave it at the above remarks.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Hint : I doesn't seem like you understand the concept of "Relativity of Simultaneity" properly. Have a thorough read through here :

    Relativity of simultaneity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Draw Minkowski diagrams for all your events and observers. Take it from there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Hint : I doesn't seem like you understand the concept of "Relativity of Simultaneity" properly. Have a thorough read through here :



    Draw Minkowski diagrams for all your events and observers. Take it from there.
    Many thanks. I have gone through that.

    A and -A are simultaneous events in the M frame but are not simultaneous in the M'.

    But, correct me if I am wrong, M' is not viewing the relativity of simultaneity. M' is viewing simultaneous events A' and -A' just like M. This is just as true in relativity.

    So, M views only simultaneous events and M' views only simultaneous events. This is supported by the light postulate in each frame.

    I then start with this fact when B' and M are co-located and proceed. This is supported by relativity and there is no error in proceeding from the facts that when B' and M are co-located M is viewing simultaneous events and M' is viewing simultaneous events.

    If this is false, you can correct me right here and then I am done. Note I am not saying anything against relativity I am simply repeating what I think is the light postulate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    Then, from above, since and ,
    ...trivial application of the Lorentz transform.

    then and .
    Err, wrong. If you label as , NOTHING allows you to assume that since basic algebra teaches you that . You know, fallacy is not a very good way of deriving scientific results. It is more like GiGo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    Then, from above, since and ,
    ...trivial application of the Lorentz transform.

    then and .
    Err, wrong. If you label as , NOTHING allows you to assume that since basic algebra teaches you that . You know, fallacy is not a very good way of deriving scientific results. It is more like GiGo.
    This is what allows it in the OP.
    So, there is only one possibility left, and .

    So,

    and

    Substitute and .

    and
    Then
    and
    Combine

    Reduce
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    Then, from above, since and ,
    ...trivial application of the Lorentz transform.

    then and .
    Err, wrong. If you label as , NOTHING allows you to assume that since basic algebra teaches you that . You know, fallacy is not a very good way of deriving scientific results. It is more like GiGo.
    This is what allows it in the OP.
    Precisely, this is what makes it GiGo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    Then, from above, since and ,
    ...trivial application of the Lorentz transform.

    then and .
    Err, wrong. If you label as , NOTHING allows you to assume that since basic algebra teaches you that . You know, fallacy is not a very good way of deriving scientific results. It is more like GiGo.
    This is what allows it in the OP.
    Precisely, this is what makes it GiGo.
    I am unclear as to why you think and is true since I am refuting that.

    Can you show your proof that and is true since you say I am wrong?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    Then, from above, since and ,
    ...trivial application of the Lorentz transform.

    then and .
    Err, wrong. If you label as , NOTHING allows you to assume that since basic algebra teaches you that . You know, fallacy is not a very good way of deriving scientific results. It is more like GiGo.
    This is what allows it in the OP.
    Precisely, this is what makes it GiGo.
    I am unclear as to why you think and is true since I am refuting that.

    Can you show your proof that and is true since you say I am wrong?
    I already pointed out your error, now you are outright trolling.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Note I am not saying anything against relativity I am simply repeating what I think is the light postulate.
    Don't try to play us for fools here now; I've been doing this long enough to know an anti-relativity guy when I see one.
    All the errors you make have been pointed out to you a number of times by different posters on different forums, yet you completely ignore what is being said and just harp on. You are not here to ask genuine questions, that much is obvious, even by the few posts you made thus far on this thread.

    As for the scenario, post #5 shows the algebraic error, the Wiki page shows your conceptional error, and my general proof of self-consistency as well as the empirical evidence shows that your conclusion is wrong in any case.
    You are wasting your time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    Then, from above, since and ,
    ...trivial application of the Lorentz transform.

    then and .
    Err, wrong. If you label as , NOTHING allows you to assume that since basic algebra teaches you that . You know, fallacy is not a very good way of deriving scientific results. It is more like GiGo.
    This is what allows it in the OP.
    Precisely, this is what makes it GiGo.
    I am unclear as to why you think and is true since I am refuting that.

    Can you show your proof that and is true since you say I am wrong?
    I already pointed out your error, now you are outright trolling.
    It has already been explained to you that your observation is completely false.

    Here it is again. Also, check the OP. You keep making the same statement A over and over and it has nothing to do with this thread.

    Now, check my post where I showed your assertion to be false.

    Here it is again.


    I am unclear as to why you think and is true since I am refuting that.

    Can you show your proof that and is true since you say I am wrong?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Note I am not saying anything against relativity I am simply repeating what I think is the light postulate.
    Don't try to play us for fools here now; I've been doing this long enough to know an anti-relativity guy when I see one.
    All the errors you make have been pointed out to you a number of times by different posters on different forums, yet you completely ignore what is being said and just harp on. You are not here to ask genuine questions, that much is obvious, even by the few posts you made thus far on this thread.

    As for the scenario, post #5 shows the algebraic error, the Wiki page shows your conceptional error, and my general proof of self-consistency as well as the empirical evidence shows that your conclusion is wrong in any case.
    You are wasting your time.
    I have read your primer on GR and it is very good. So, I know you are smart.

    But, there is no algebra error in my post. xyzt was refuted in this claim and then went on to continue claiming it.

    Also, your proof of consistency only considered one light beam. Go back and look. I can do it in less steps and with less confusion.

    Now, did you prove it with 2 light beams. Try it out and post it as a primer.

    See, you have to start like I did. You have to assume a light pulse emitted from the origins is simultaneous in both frames since that is the light postulate. You will not be able to prove self consistency in this case. Try it.

    If you think you can present it here, I know how to refute such a claim.

    That is what this thread is about.
    Last edited by whatifitaint; November 25th, 2013 at 07:38 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    But, there is no algebra error in my post.
    Rubbish, you can't even do a simple sign inversion. Looks like we are dealing with yet another professional troll.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    20
    OK, I am going to use a simple method to prove what many would claim is the consistency of Special relativity. This is my proof by the way and not hijacked.

    I intend to show, is true if and only if is true in the standard configuration.
    In the standard configuration, and

    So, start with .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    Now, we have , , and then



    Since this can be reversed, then the if and only if is established.

    However, this simple proof contains an error that any assertion about the consistency of special relativity contains. It fails with 2 light beams.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,229
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    But, there is no algebra error in my post.
    Rubbish, you can't even do a simple sign inversion. Looks like we are dealing with yet another professional troll.
    This sounds suspiciously like Motordaddy, one of the most obstinate trolls on another forum. He makes the same basic math errors and then sticks with them far past the point that any rational person would recognize their errors.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    But, there is no algebra error in my post.
    Rubbish, you can't even do a simple sign inversion. Looks like we are dealing with yet another professional troll.
    Sure I can and it was explained to you. Yet, you did not grasp the simple logic in which I refuted your post.

    Further, you did not answer my rebuttal posts and continue on with your false trolling assertions.

    I have refuted your assertion and I suggest you read what is going on in this thread so that you do not look so silly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    But, there is no algebra error in my post.
    Rubbish, you can't even do a simple sign inversion. Looks like we are dealing with yet another professional troll.
    This sounds suspiciously like Motordaddy, one of the most obstinate trolls on another forum. He makes the same basic math errors and then sticks with them far past the point that any rational person would recognize their errors.
    I did not make a math error.

    That was refuted.

    If you think my rebuttal is false, then indicate why.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    But, there is no algebra error in my post.
    Rubbish, you can't even do a simple sign inversion. Looks like we are dealing with yet another professional troll.
    This sounds suspiciously like Motordaddy, one of the most obstinate trolls on another forum. He makes the same basic math errors and then sticks with them far past the point that any rational person would recognize their errors.
    Thank you for the heads up, this is chinglu, not Motor Daddy, an equally odious troll/crank. I'll let the moderators deal with this new troll.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    But, there is no algebra error in my post.
    Rubbish, you can't even do a simple sign inversion. Looks like we are dealing with yet another professional troll.
    This sounds suspiciously like Motordaddy, one of the most obstinate trolls on another forum. He makes the same basic math errors and then sticks with them far past the point that any rational person would recognize their errors.
    Thank you for the heads up. I'll let the moderators deal with this new troll.
    Why don't you deal with the posts in which I refuted your assertions about my proof. Do you not learn?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    But, there is no algebra error in my post.
    Rubbish, you can't even do a simple sign inversion. Looks like we are dealing with yet another professional troll.
    This sounds suspiciously like Motordaddy, one of the most obstinate trolls on another forum. He makes the same basic math errors and then sticks with them far past the point that any rational person would recognize their errors.
    Thank you for the heads up, this is chinglu, not Motor Daddy, an equally odious troll/crank. I'll let the moderators deal with this new troll.
    I have seen work product from chinglu and I do not think he is capable of post #14 thank you. that is mine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,229
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Thank you for the heads up, this is chinglu, not Motor Daddy, an equally odious troll/crank. I'll let the moderators deal with this new troll.
    OK; to me the pattern of behavior ("I did not make a math error; that was refuted." "Do you not learn?" "You did not grasp the simple logic in which I refuted your post." etc) is more Motordaddy, but you probably have more experience with both than I do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Thank you for the heads up, this is chinglu, not Motor Daddy, an equally odious troll/crank. I'll let the moderators deal with this new troll.
    OK; to me the pattern of behavior ("I did not make a math error; that was refuted." "Do you not learn?" "You did not grasp the simple logic in which I refuted your post." etc) is more Motordaddy, but you probably have more experience with both than I do.
    Definitely chinglu. MD cannot do tex.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Thank you for the heads up, this is chinglu, not Motor Daddy, an equally odious troll/crank. I'll let the moderators deal with this new troll.
    OK; to me the pattern of behavior ("I did not make a math error; that was refuted." "Do you not learn?" "You did not grasp the simple logic in which I refuted your post." etc) is more Motordaddy, but you probably have more experience with both than I do.
    Definitely chinglu. MD cannot do tex.
    I don't know motor daddy where I come from but I am aware of chinglu.

    However, chinglu is weak at the fundamentals of maths though I see some points he does make.

    I point to post #14 to demonstrate my strengths. I ask the moderator here to evaluate it vs his proof.

    He will find mine is simpler.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Thank you for the heads up, this is chinglu, not Motor Daddy, an equally odious troll/crank. I'll let the moderators deal with this new troll.
    OK; to me the pattern of behavior ("I did not make a math error; that was refuted." "Do you not learn?" "You did not grasp the simple logic in which I refuted your post." etc) is more Motordaddy, but you probably have more experience with both than I do.
    Definitely chinglu. MD cannot do tex.
    I don't know motor daddy where I come from but I am aware of chinglu.
    I would expect so, since you ARE chinglu, the most odious troll/crank.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Thank you for the heads up, this is chinglu, not Motor Daddy, an equally odious troll/crank. I'll let the moderators deal with this new troll.
    OK; to me the pattern of behavior ("I did not make a math error; that was refuted." "Do you not learn?" "You did not grasp the simple logic in which I refuted your post." etc) is more Motordaddy, but you probably have more experience with both than I do.
    Definitely chinglu. MD cannot do tex.
    I don't know motor daddy where I come from but I am aware of chinglu.
    I would expect so, since you ARE chinglu, the most odious troll/crank.
    Did chinglu ever prove post #14? Why not?

    You are a circus clown that I have refuted time and again and yet after being refuted you post on and on like reality is not real.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    20
    OK, I only produced logic and rules that no one can refute.

    And this is science.

    Yet, this pure logic is moved to pseudo. That proves the forum cannot refute this science presented.

    I am gone from this flat earth place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    OK, I only produced logic and rules that no one can refute.

    And this is science.

    Yet, this pure logic is moved to pseudo. That proves the forum cannot refute this science presented.

    I am gone from this flat earth place.
    Good riddance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    But, there is no algebra error in my post.
    Yes there is, and there are several conceptual errors also, all of which where pointed out to you.

    Also, your proof of consistency only considered one light beam.
    What are you talking about ? I never mentioned anything about "light beams" - it's a simple mathematical proof using basic tensor algebra.

    See, you have to start like I did.
    As a crank ? No thanks.

    If you think you can present it here, I know how to refute such a claim.
    The proof has nothing to do with "light beams" - petty that you can't even understand the simple maths in there.

    OK, I only produced logic and rules that no one can refute.
    And this is science.
    Yet, this pure logic is moved to pseudo. That proves the forum cannot refute this science presented.
    I am gone from this flat earth place.
    It has been refuted both here and on Physics Forums. You have wasted your time, just as I predicted.
    Good bye.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    But, there is no algebra error in my post.
    Yes there is, and there are several conceptual errors also, all of which where pointed out to you.

    Also, your proof of consistency only considered one light beam.
    What are you talking about ? I never mentioned anything about "light beams" - it's a simple mathematical proof using basic tensor algebra.

    See, you have to start like I did.
    As a crank ? No thanks.

    If you think you can present it here, I know how to refute such a claim.
    The proof has nothing to do with "light beams" - petty that you can't even understand the simple maths in there.

    OK, I only produced logic and rules that no one can refute.
    And this is science.
    Yet, this pure logic is moved to pseudo. That proves the forum cannot refute this science presented.
    I am gone from this flat earth place.
    It has been refuted both here and on Physics Forums. You have wasted your time, just as I predicted.
    Good bye.

    First, this refuted the algebra error claim.


    Look at post #6.




    Next,
    What are you talking about ? I never mentioned anything about "light beams" - it's a simple mathematical proof using basic tensor algebra.


    Your proof contains an assumption about the constant speed of light in any frame. Therefore, it must include a proof in which only light beams are considered. So, you are wrong. And, if you think your proof does not include light beams, then it is not a proof under special relativity.


    Further, note how efficient my proof is. You can make efficient proofs like that when you completely understand the reasoning. If you think my proof is wrong, have a go at it. Since you have not complained, I guess you have accepted it as valid. Really, that its your only option anyway.


    Next, I started under the assumption at any instant of time both frames claim the lightning strike is equidistant from their origins M and M'. So, how exactly is this crank thinking.


    Finally, your assertion that it was refuted here is false. Also, your claim it was refuted at the other place is false. They could not provide an answer. In fact, look at PAllen's last post. There is a glaring error in his calculations. It is amusing to me that the mod there could not see it. I am guessing you can't see it either.


    So, this experiment stands as unrefuted in its conclusions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,229
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    I am gone from this flat earth place.
    Cool! Perhaps you will be happier in a place where people do not question your "wisdom" (and aren't too particular about the accuracy of math.)

    (next post) First, this refuted the algebra error claim.
    Looks like you can't even maintain consistency through two posts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,395
    If this is Chinglu, i will not that he is currently on permanent ban from a year or so ago, and thus is violating the ban by socking.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by whatifitaint View Post
    First, this refuted the algebra error claim.
    No, it stands as pointed out.

    Your proof contains an assumption about the constant speed of light in any frame
    No it doesn't. The constant speed of light is a conclusion from the proof, not a prior assumption. That is why it is written after the "quod erad demonstrandum". The initial postulates are listed in the beginning of the proof, and as you can readily verify no reference to the speed of light is made there at all.

    Why can't you just admit that you really don't understand the proof ? It is obvious that you are ignorant not just of the physics behind relativity, but of the maths also. The four postulates as given are empirical facts, so the proof stands, as it has for the past 100+ years from when it was first given.

    Finally, your assertion that it was refuted here is false.
    No it isn't. In any case, there is nothing to be "refuted" because your conclusions aren't valid in the first place.

    They could not provide an answer.
    The answer was provided, and stands as presented. Your refusal to acknowledge it doesn't change that fact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    I am guessing you can't see it either.
    MODERATOR NOTE : And I am guessing you were trying to take us for a ride, like this fellow :



    Did you really think we won't recognize you, chinglu ? Banned for sock puppetry, and thread moved to "Pseudoscience", where all this anti-relativity nonsense rightfully belongs.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; November 27th, 2013 at 04:30 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Einstein's train experiment
    By chinglu in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 364
    Last Post: August 24th, 2012, 01:00 PM
  2. The Gravity Train
    By Nyptop in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 13th, 2012, 11:48 AM
  3. Train Wheels
    By zinjanthropos in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 4th, 2012, 08:29 PM
  4. Train
    By Empringle in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 1st, 2011, 01:18 PM
  5. Riding on the Brane TrainÖ
    By rrw4rusty in forum Physics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 20th, 2009, 09:22 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •