It is often claimed that what the Lorentz transformations give is a phantom, a mirage that has no relation to reality. In fact, it can be argued that the Lorentz transformations in the physical situation of conducting a procedure of physical observation of a relativistically moving material object do give objective physical reality. Only this physical reality does not relate to the proper physical parameters of the relativistically moving material object, but to their light reflection delivered to a stationary observer by light rays.
Anyone who wants to object, please object. But before that, it is desirable that you familiarize yourself with the new results in the theory of special relativity. Without familiarization and study, you can get into trouble. I ask that people who do not know STR well enough not participate in the discussion. Because insufficient competence in these matters can let you down.
Details can be found below in the published links.
Часто утверждают, что то, что дают преобразования Лоренца, это фантом, мираж, не имеющий отношения к реальности. На самом деле можно утверждать, что преобразования Лоренца в физической ситуации проведения процедуры физического наблюдения за релятивистски движущимся материальным объектом действительно дают объективную физическую реальность. Вот только эта физическая реальность относится не к собственным физическим параметрам релятивистски движущегося материального объекта, а к их световому отображению, доставляемому к неподвижному наблюдателю световыми лучами.
Кто хочет возразить, пожалуйста возражайте. Но перед этим желательно ваше ознакомление с новыми результатами в теории специальной относительности. Без ознакомления и изучения можно попасть в просак. Лиц, недостаточно хорошо знающих СТО, в дискуссии прошу не участвовать. Потому что недостаточная компетентность в этих вопросах может вас подвести.
Подробности можно посмотреть ниже в публикуемых ссылках.
- «Arbitrary motion of inertial frames of reference and the group of trigonometric Lorentz transformations», ссылки: www.researchgate.net/publication/375025456_Arbitrary_motion_of_inertial_frames_of_reference_and_the_group_of_trigonometric_Lorentz_transformations , и https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374974661_trigonometry_SRT_researchgate_2 ;
- «To the theory of the visible form of relativistic moving material objects», DOI:
10.13140/RG.2.2.22744.10240
- «Pseudoscientific myths around special relativity. Shortening the length», DOI:
10.13140/RG.2.2.14576.67848 ;
- «On changes in the pace of the course of time in the special theory of relativity due to the phenomenon of light delay», DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35956.46729 ;
- «Pseudo-scientific myths of STR. Slowing down of proper time of moving objects», DOI:
10.13140/RG.2.2.21695.83363 ;
Yes, because there does exist a mathematical description of natural phenomena-the Standard Theory of particle physics, that describes the weak, electromagnetic and strong interactions of the point-like objects that make up all known forms of matter-that is invariant under global Lorentz transformations. That's why they're useful and not, simply, a topic in mathematics.
@ Stam Nicolis
Dear Stam Nicolis! Your point of view is accepted, and it coincides with mine. That is not the question. The question is that light (electromagnetic) rays, delivering information to the observer (researcher) about the kinematic parameters of a relativistically moving object, give this researcher a light (EM) display of its own parameters (the geometric configuration of the body according to A. Einstein), depending not only on the speed of the object, but also on the location of this researcher relative to the trajectory of the body, that is, depending on the location of the researcher in 3D space. In this regard, there is such a location of the researcher in space, at which he will observe not the kinematic parameters of the relativistically moving object, but its own parameters (geometric configuration).
Уважаемый Stam Nicolis! Ваша точка зрения принята, и она совпадает с моей. Вопрос не в этом. Вопрос в том, что световые (электромагнитные) лучи, доставляющие информацию наблюдателю (исследователю) об кинематических параметрах релятивистски движущегося объекта, дают этому исследователю световое (ЭМ) отображение собственных параметров (геометрическая конфигурация тела по А. Эйнштейну), зависящее не только от скорости движения объекта, но еще и от расположения этого исследователя относительно траектории движения тела, то есть, зависящие от местоположения исследователя в 3D пространстве.
В связи с этим существует такое местоположение исследователя в пространстве, при котором он будет наблюдать не кинематические параметры релятивистски движущегося объекта, а его собственные параметры (геометрическую конфигурацию).
They do and they don't.
The Lorentz relation do describe correctly the behaviour of light rays only. (The EM).
But the phantom is that they have "transcended" their domain of applicibility (the EM)-- Einstein tries to claim this, but in reality they only ever apply to light-rays.
In a word-- it is the light that alters to make the following true : x = ct and x' = c t', not time and space.
For more information vide :
Preprint Another brief proof via Einstein's vel. addition formula tha...
and
Preprint Demonstration via the Einstein Addition of Velocities formul...
No! Lorentz Transformations, LT, lead to contradictions if applied to our reality.
See also question: Special Theory of Relativity (STR), Lorentz Transformations (LT): The Last Question?
If you can answer this question, we can discuss further.
Yes, but only the classics remain classics, the theory of relativity has nothing to do with it. Lorentz transformations are simply a transition from the Descartes coordinate system to a system with two shortened axes during the movement of a radiating object inside a spherical space limited by a wave of spherical radiation. And nothing more!
Vladimir A. Lebedev
2) "Yes, but only the classics remain classics, the theory of relativity has nothing to do with it."
Special Theory of Relativity (STR) has as its basis LT and when you talk about LT you talk about STR.
3) "Lorentz transformations are simply a transition from the Descartes coordinate system to a system with two shortened axes during the movement of a radiating object inside a spherical space limited by a wave of spherical radiation. And nothing more!"
Of course, LT are just transformations. But it is these transformations that lead to time dilation and length contraction. You simplify the scope of STR.
a) "with two shortened axes" How are they shortened? And why are there only two?
b) "during the movement of a radiating object inside a spherical space limited by a wave of spherical radiation." I would like to see a figure of this model that you describe.
Jan Slowak
I am not prone to verbosity. Here - in RG - there are my works on gravity and STR.
Vladimir A. Lebedev
4) "I am not prone to verbosity. Here - in RG - there are my works on gravity and STR."
I am not inclined to be verbose either. Ideally, I am interested in mathematical models and figures around which one can discuss with the help of mathematics, physics and logic.
I read most of what is written about STR and also about the Big Bang. That is why I reacted to your comment.
Jan Slowak
Read about the Big Bang and the Special Relativity? Time of life is lost..
Vladimir A. Lebedev
5) "Read about the Big Bang and the Special Relativity? Time of life is lost.."
That may be so. But how and what should you do if you study at high school and then at university and you read about different theories that go against what you learned at school.
Regardless of what it was in my physics lessons, I have filtered (not just read) and reviewed through previous knowledge. Where there were contradictory statements, I had to delve deeper and enlighten others about my conclusions. Those who do not accept what I write can analyze my articles, books, and prove me wrong.
@Gary Stephens
Dear Gary Stephens!
You wrote "They both do and do not do." I partially agree with this. Can you explain in more detail?
You wrote "The Lorentz equation correctly describes the behavior of light rays only. (Electromagnetic radiation)." I partially agree. Let me explain. In situations of physical OBSERVATION of the motion of a material object moving at a relativistic speed, yes, I agree. In a situation of direct electromagnetic INFLUENCE on a relativistically moving object, no, I do not agree with you.
In the latter case, the Lorentz transformations correctly describe the real physical (proper) parameters of such an object itself. For example, when accelerating particles in accelerators. For example, in the experiments of Bailey J. et al. (1) by studying the motion of +/- muons in accelerators within the limits of experimental accuracy, the proper lifetime of relativistically moving both plus and minus muons was determined, which completely coincides with their proper lifetime when they are at rest. The same was proven by other research groups regarding the motion of other particles in accelerators: +/- pions, K± and Ks0 kaons.
Therefore, in relation to Lorentz transformations, it is necessary to clearly distinguish physically different cases: OBSERVATIONS and INFLUENCES.
So light (EM) rays did not "go" anywhere beyond their area of application.
(1) Bailey J. et al., «Measurements of relativistic time dilatation for positive and negative muons in a circular orbit», Nature, Vol. 268, 28 July 1977, p. 301 – 305.
Good luck!
Уважаемый Gary Stephens!
Вы писали «Они и делают, и не делают». Я с этим частично согласен. Пояснить подробнее можете?
Вы писали «Уравнение Лоренца верно описывает поведение только световых лучей. (Электромагнитное излучение)». Согласен частично. Поясняю. В ситуациях физического НАБЛЮДЕНИЯ за движением материального объекта, движущегося с релятивистской скоростью, да, согласен. В ситуации прямого электромагнитного ВОЗДЕЙСТВИЯ на релятивистски движущийся объект, нет, не согласен с вами.
В последнем случае преобразования Лоренца верно описывают и реальные физические (собственные) параметры самого такого объекта. Например, при ускорении частиц на ускорителях. Например, в экспериментах Bailey J. et al. (1) по изучению в ускорителях движения +/- мюонов в пределах точности эксперимента определено собственное время жизни релятивистски движущихся как плюс, так и минус мюонов, полностью совпадающее с собственным временем их жизни, когда они находятся в состоянии покоя. Тоже самое доказали другие группы исследователей в отношении движения в ускорителях других частиц: +/- пионов, K± и Ks0 каонов.
Поэтому в отношении преобразований Лоренца надо четко разделять физически разные случаи: НАБЛЮДЕНИЯ и ВОЗДЕЙСТВИЯ.
Так что световые (ЭМ) лучи никуда не «выходили» за пределы своей области применения.
Успехов!
(1) Bailey J. et al., «Measurements of relativistic time dilatation for positive and negative muons in a circular orbit», Nature, Vol. 268, 28 July 1977, p. 301 – 305.
Dear Jan Slowak!
You wrote "No! The Lorentz transformations, PT, lead to contradictions when applied to our reality".
I cannot agree with you. You probably mean only cases of OBSERVATION by a stationary observer of the relativistic motion of an object. But the results of particle acceleration in accelerators (1) do not support your assertion. See also my answer to Gary Stephens above.
Therefore, the Lorentz transformations do not lead to contradictions. It is critically important to correctly understand their physical essence and use them correctly. To do this, it is necessary to distinguish between cases of OBSERVATION from the outside of a relativistically moving object and cases of INFLUENCE on it.
(1) Bailey J. et al., "Measurements of relativistic time dilatation for positive and negative muons in a circular orbit", Nature, Vol. 268, 28 July 1977, p. 301 – 305.
Good luck!
Уважаемый Jan Slowak!
Вы писали «Нет! Преобразования Лоренца, ПТ, приводят к противоречиям, если применять их к нашей реальности».
Не могу с вами согласиться. Вы, вероятно, имеете в виду только случаи НАБЛЮДЕНИЯ неподвижным наблюдателем за релятивистским движением объекта. Но результаты ускорения частиц на ускорителях (1) свидетельствуют не в пользу вашего утверждения. Смотрите также выше мой ответ Gary Stephens.
Поэтому преобразования Лоренца не приводят к противоречиям. Критически важно правильно понимать их физическую сущность и правильно использовать. Для этого надо различать случаи НАБЛЮДЕНИЯ со стороны за релятивистски движущимся объектом и случаи ВОЗДЕЙСТВИЯ на него.
(1) Bailey J. et al., «Measurements of relativistic time dilatation for positive and negative muons in a circular orbit», Nature, Vol. 268, 28 July 1977, p. 301 – 305.
Успехов!
@Jan Slowak
Dear Jan Slowak!
Without interfering in your discussion with Vladimir A. Lebedev, I must note the following.
You wrote "it is these transformations that lead to time dilation and length contraction."
It is very important and correct for researchers writing about STR to always mention which frame of reference their statement pertains to. In this case, you wrote about time dilation and length contraction, but did not indicate which of the two frames of reference your statement pertains to. The point is that time dilation and length contraction in STR pertain exclusively and only to the frame of reference of a stationary observer, because it is exclusively and only the observed kinematic parameters of a moving object that "slow down" and "contract," and not its own parameters.
Good luck!
Уважаемый Jan Slowak!
Не вмешиваясь в вашу дискуссию с Vladimir A. Lebedev, должен заметить следующее.
Вы писали «именно эти преобразования приводят к замедлению времени и сокращению длины».
Для исследователей, пишущих об СТО, очень важно и правильно всегда упоминать, к какой системе отсчета относится то или иное их утверждение. В данном случае вы писали о замедлении времени и сокращении длины, но не указали, к какой из двух рассматриваемых систем отсчета относится это ваше утверждение. Дело в том, что замедление времени и сокращение длины в СТО относится исключительно и только к системе отсчета неподвижного наблюдателя, потому что «замедляются» и «сокращаются» исключительно и только наблюдаемые кинематические параметры движущегося объекта, а не его собственные параметры.
Успехов!
Alexey Platonov
6) "I cannot agree with you. You probably mean only cases of OBSERVATION by a stationary observer of the relativistic motion of an object. But the results of particle acceleration in accelerators (1) do not support your assertion."
What I want to say is the following: Lorentz Transformations, LT, are a mathematical construct. To legitimize them, Einstein and many others have done so-called derivations of LT. These derivations are made with the help of two IRF and the speed of light (it is these IRF and the motion of light that I call our reality). And these derivations lead to contradictions.
Book Special Relativity is Nonsense
Article Analysis of k-calculus from Introducing Einstein's Relativi...
7) "But the results of particle acceleration in accelerators (1) do not support your assertion."
'acceleration' --> STR is not about acceleration.
8) "Therefore, the Lorentz transformations do not lead to contradictions."
See comment 7).
9) "Measurements of relativistic time dilatation for positive and negative muons in a circular orbit"
'circular orbit' --> STR is not about circular orbit.
19) "It is very important and correct for researchers writing about STR to always mention which frame of reference their statement pertains to. In this case, you wrote about time dilation and length contraction, but did not indicate which of the two frames of reference your statement pertains to."
According to STR, the two IRF are symmetric and equivalent.
I have actually shown that this is not the case. The two IRF are not completely symmetrical. But that's another question.
Preprint Lorentz Transformations -Mathematics and Symmetry
@Jan Slowak
Jan Slowak, I give answers in accordance with your digital points.
6) = Lorentz transformation, LT, are a mathematical structure. To legitimize them, Einstein and many others complied with the so -called LT conclusions. ... and these conclusions lead to contradictions. =
Of course, as a mathematical structure designed to describe the real physical world. They do not lead to contradictions. There are really contradictions in the STR, but not where you see them.
You can, of course, loudly name the book “Special Relativity is Nonsense”, but only this loud name does not mean that its author understands the STR. Most likely, he does not understand, and does not understand and does not accept.
7) = "Acceleration" -> str not about acceleration =.
Of course, the STR is not about acceleration, there is no doubt. That's just why you got that if the particle accelerates on the accelerator, then the STR is not applicable to either the particle or to the accelerators ??
A). The design of accelerators is created in full accordance with the STR and using its formulas. If you do not know about it, then read any textbook on the design of accelerators and how to build and use them. If you are still firmly convinced of your opinion, then tell the engineers about it who create and build accelerators. :-)))
b). Experiments with particles on accelerators are carried out not when they accelerate, but when they move straight by inertia after the acceleration stage, which is described absolutely precisely by the formulas of the STR. Therefore, your previous statement of “the transformation of the Lorentz, leads to contradictions, if you apply them to our reality,” there is a statement of a person who does not know the subtlety of the essence of the issue. That is why I gave you an example with particle accelerators. Because the work of particle accelerators in accordance with the STR completely refutes your reasoning.
Your comment 8) I miss, because it is connected with 7).
9) = 'Circular Orbit' -> STR not about round orbit. =
Of course, the STR is not about a circular orbit, undoubtedly. I did not write about the circular orbit anywhere, and did not talk. This is in the name of the Bailey J. et al. A circular orbit is mentioned. But it is enough to read the article itself, and will not be limited to reading its name in order to understand that the Bailey J. et al experiment. It was carried out with +/- Muons when they were in an inertial movement in a straight line, and not when they accelerated in the accelerator ring. So this is your objection is not appropriate.
19) = According to str, The Two IRF AreMmetric and Equivalent =
This is really so, because both of them belong to the same class of inertial reference systems. But this does not mean that the researcher who writes or engaged in the STR is free to indicate or not to indicate which of the reference systems his next statement refers to. Quite the contrary. An indication by the researcher, which of the two reference systems, motionless or moving, is its next statement, is mandatory. Otherwise, errors and incorrect conclusions are most often possible. I am upset that you do not understand this.
Good luck to you in life, in science and in work!Jan Slowak, даю ответы в соответствии с вашими цифровыми пунктами.
6) =преобразования Лоренца, LT, являются математической конструкцией. Чтобы узаконить их, Эйнштейн и многие другие выполнили так называемые выводы LT. … И эти выводы приводят к противоречиям.=
Безусловно так, математической конструкцией, призванной описывать реальный физический мир. К противоречиям НЕ ПРИВОДЯТ. Противоречия в STR действительно есть, но только не там, где вы их видите.
Можно, конечно, громко назвать книгу «Special Relativity is Nonsense», но только это громкое название не говорит о том, что ее автор разбирается в STR. Скорее всего, не разбирается, а не понимает и не принимает.
7) = «Ускорение» -> STR не о ускорении =.
Конечно, STR не об ускорении, сомнений нет. Вот только с чего вы взяли, что если частица разгоняется на ускорителе, то STR неприменима ни к частице, ни к ускорителям??
a). конструкция ускорителей создается в полном соответствии с STR и с использованием ее формул. Если вы об этом не знаете, то почитайте любой учебник по конструкции ускорителей и о том, как их построить и использовать. Если вы по-прежнему твердо убеждены в своем мнении, то расскажите о нем инженерам, которые создают и строят ускорители. :-)))
b). эксперименты с частицами на ускорителях проводятся не тогда, когда они ускоряются, а тогда, когда они ПОСЛЕ ЭТАПА УСКОРЕНИЯ движутся прямолинейно ПО ИНЕРЦИИ, что и описывается абсолютно точно формулами STR. Поэтому ваше предыдущее утверждение «Преобразования Лоренца, приводят к противоречиям, если применять их к нашей реальности», есть утверждение человека, не знающего тонкости существа вопроса. Именно поэтому я вам и привел пример с ускорителями частиц. Потому что работа ускорителей частиц в соответствии с STR полностью опровергает ваши рассуждения.
Ваш комментарий 8) пропускаю, ибо он связан с 7).
9) ='Circular Orbit' -> str не о круглой орбите.=
Конечно, STR не о круговой орбите, несомненно. Я о круговой орбите нигде и не писал, и не говорил. Это в названии статьи Bailey J. et al. упомянута круговая орбита. Но достаточно почитать саму статью, а не ограничится чтением ее названия, чтобы понять, что эксперимент Bailey J. et al. проводился с +/- мюонами при нахождении их в ИНЕРЦИОННОМ движении ПО ПРЯМОЙ, а не тогда, когда они разгонялись в кольце ускорителя. Так что это ваше возражение не уместно.
19) =According to STR, the two IRF are symmetric and equivalent=
Это действительно так, потому что обе они относятся к одному и тому же классу инерциальных систем отсчета. Но это не означает, что исследователь, пишущий или занимающийся STR, волен указывать или не указывать, к какой из систем отсчета его очередное утверждение относится. Совсем наоборот. Указание исследователем, к какой из двух систем отсчета, неподвижной или движущейся, относится его очередное утверждение, является ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬНЫМ. Иначе чаще всего возможны ошибки и неправильные выводы. Я огорчен, что вы этого не понимаете.
Успехов вам в жизни, в науке и в труде!
10) "Of course, as a mathematical structure designed to describe the real physical world. They do not lead to contradictions."
The derivation of LT with events from the physical world LEADS to contradictions!
Book Special Relativity is Nonsense
Article Mathematics shows that the Lorentz transformations are not s...
11) "There are really contradictions in the STR, but not where you see them."
There is no point in mentioning something if you don't describe it.
12) "You can, of course, loudly name the book “Special Relativity is Nonsense”, but only this loud name does not mean that its author understands the STR. Most likely, he does not understand, and does not understand and does not accept."
Because you do not respect the RG platform's policy and engage in personal attacks, it feels wrong to continue commenting on anything you write.
On H. Minkowski's unnoticed proof we have no “Relativity of Simultaneity.”
Preprint On H. Minkowski's unnoticed proof we have no “Relativity of ...
Gary Stephens
13) "On H. Minkowski's unnoticed proof we have no “Relativity of Simultaneity.”"
I have worked with STR for many years and I didn't have to think about the concept of 'Simultaneity'. But I can if you define the concept and explain what the problem is with it. It's an interesting concept.
This looks like an interesting article.
Article Student understanding of time in special relativity: Simulta...
I haven't read it--- but I noticed in Figure 1 that they employ spacetime diagrams.
The problem is these spacetime diagram do not represent events of the real world. These are Absolute and the same for everyone.
What they do represent are the corrections and offsets to the light rays only, such that there is no "Relativity of Simultaneity". Ditto, the Lorentz relations.
Gary Stephens
14) "The results indicate that after standard instruction students at all academic levels have serious difficulties with the relativity of simultaneity"
It's no wonder that students don't understand how it works. Fig. 1 --> No thanks. That's not how you should start explaining simultaneity!
15) "The problem is these spacetime diagram do not represent events of the real world. These are Absolute and the same for everyone."
You should first explain how it works in reality and then mix in SR.
My bad. I discovered H. Minkowski's proof (of distant simultaneity) is more general than I have previously recognised. Revised MS. incoming shortly.
My bad. As I said, I hadn't realised the generality of H. Minkowski's proof---- that we have distant simultaneity everywhere ie. an Absolute character to space and time.
Also included is a clearer exposition of how this relates to the Michelson-Morley experiment.
And an additional bit of text by Minkowski.
Please find revised MS. here :
Preprint On H. Minkowski's unnoticed proof we have no “Relativity of ...
It is difficult to ascertain, whether H. Minkowski's "Principle of Relativity" was written after "Raum und Zeit," or cotemporaneously.
If it was written after, then it could be Minkowski realised his mistake, and proved it in this subsequent publication, but unfortunately, passed-away very soon after, and so he couldn't make his views more widely known.
The result is the colossal errors of Special and General Relativity, moving clocks run slow &c.
Due to the recent historical digging-up or uncovering, anyone maintaining that the "Relativity of Simultaneity" is valid, will have to refute H Minkowski's mathematical proof, utilizing the Lorentz relations, that we have distant simultaneity everywhere.
ie. According to H. Minkowski, we have an Absolute character to space and time.
Preprint On H. Minkowski's unnoticed proof we have no “Relativity of ...
@ Jan Slowak
12) Jan Slowak, an attempt to get away from an answer, demonstrating an invented or actual resentment, cannot be considered an argument in the discussion.
In fact, physics is full of professional physicists who really do not understand, for various reasons, in the STR. Including writing articles and books on this issue in which they do not succeed at all. Among such non -signant in the STR there are professors, doctors of sciences, and academicians. And this is not my personal opinion, this is an opinion, for example, such a prominent physicist as academician Okun L.B. So there is nothing offensive in this. And when someone, for example, like me, see this no success in this matter, I have every right to declare that the author does not understand this issue. And these are no personal attacks. This is a simple statement of the actual state of affairs, and there is no disrespect here. If someone does not understand the STR, then this does not mean that he does not understand other physics issues. In other issues of physics, this someone is possible that it may be a genius.
Therefore, I reject your accusation of personal attacks on you as not justified.
You may not comment on what I am writing, this is your personal right and your personal decision.
11) = there is no point in mentioning something if you do not describe it =
I do not have the opportunity to mention in my brief posts numerous flaws, incorrect statements and frank fantasies that really take place in the Str. The method of presenting the material in posts (questions and answers) does not imply a detailed discussion. Moreover, often the parties involved in discussions simply do not understand each other just because of the necessary brevity.
Therefore, I repeat my statement: "There are really contradictions in the STR, but not where you see them." If you want to see these real contradictions that take place in the StR, then get acquainted with my work. Do not want to see, do not get acquainted. But I am not going to rewrite my detailed results in numerous brief posts again. Having a desire to see, but he will see. Not having a desire to see, let it pass by. Not him.
10) = LT connection with events from the physical world leads to contradictions! =
Sometimes, indeed, leads. In other cases, it does not lead at all. Each such case must be disassembled separately, delve into the essence of the problem and find ways to solve it. And do not dump everything in one heap, pointing at her with a finger: “Ah, how is it all wrong!”
To your information, the relativistic radical, which underlies Lorentz’s transformations, was first discovered by O. Hevisaid back in 1889, and then re -J. J. Thomson in 1893. Both found it during research in electrodynamics. So
LT connection with events from the physical world (electrodynamics) does not lead to contradictions. If you saw a concrete contradiction somewhere, then specifically with it you need to deal with it, and not to generalize this contradiction to all physics for no reason.
If you consider it necessary to be so categorical in this matter, then at first you need to remove a relativistic radical from electrodynamics and its development, quantum electrodynamics, and at the same time change the theory of groups in its certain aspects.
How to do this and the scientific world recognizes your contribution to this grandiose achievement, then we will discuss the issue of “unconditional inconsistency” by the realities of the physical world.
Like this.
12) Jan Slowak, попытка уходить от ответа, демонстрируя выдуманную или фактическую обиду, не может считаться за аргумент в дискуссии.
На самом деле в физике полно профессиональных физиков, действительно не разбирающихся, по разным причинам, в STR. В том числе и пишущих статьи и книги по данному вопросу, в котором они совсем не преуспевают. Среди таких не разбирающихся в STR есть и профессора, и доктора наук, и академики. И это не мое личное мнение, это мнение, например, такого видного физика как академик Окунь Л.Б. Так что ничего обидного в этом нет. И когда кто-то, например, как я, вижу это не преуспевание в данном вопросе, то я имею полное право заявить о том, что автор в данном вопросе не разбирается. И это никакие не личные нападки. Это – простая констатация фактического положения дел, и никакой неуважительности здесь нет. Если кто-то не разбирается в STR, то это совсем не значит, что он не разбирается и в других вопросах физики. В других вопросах физики этот кто-то, не исключено, что может быть и гением.
Поэтому я ваше обвинение в личных нападках на вас отвергаю, как не обоснованные.
Вы можете не комментировать то, что я пишу, это ваше личное право и ваше личное решение.
11) = Нет смысла упоминать что-то, если вы не описываете это =
Я не имею возможности упоминать в своих кратких постах многочисленные огрехи, неверные утверждения и откровенные фантазии, действительно имеющие место в STR. Способ представления материала в постах (вопросы и ответы) не предполагает развернутого обсуждения. Тем более, что часто стороны, участвующие в дискуссии, просто не понимают друг друга как раз из-за необходимой краткости изложения.
Поэтому повторяю свое утверждение: ««В STR действительно есть противоречия, но не там, где вы их видите». Если хотите увидеть эти действительные противоречия, имеющие место в STR, то знакомьтесь с моими работами. Не хотите увидеть, не знакомьтесь. Но я переписывать еще раз свои развернутые результаты в многочисленных кратких постах не собираюсь. Имеющий желание видеть, да увидит. Не имеющий желание видеть, пусть проходит мимо. Не его это.
10) = Связь LT с событиями из физического мира ПРИВОДИТ к противоречиям!=
Иногда, действительно, приводит. В других случаях совсем не приводит. Каждый такой случай надо разбирать отдельно, вникать в суть проблемы и находить пути ее решения. А не сваливать все в одну кучу, показывая на нее пальцем: «Ах, как это все неправильно!».
К вашему сведению, релятивистский радикал, лежащий в основе преобразований Лоренца, впервые был обнаружен О. Хевисайдом в далеком 1889 г., а затем повторно Дж. Дж. Томсоном в 1893 году. Оба его нашли при исследованиях в электродинамике. Так что
связь LT с событиями из физического мира (электродинамике) НЕ ПРИВОДИТ к противоречиям. Если вы где-то увидели конкретное противоречие, то конкретно с ним и надо разбираться, а не обобщать без причины одно это противоречие на всю физику.
Если же вы считаете необходимым быть столь категоричным в этом вопросе, то вначале вам необходимо убрать релятивистский радикал из электродинамики и ее развития, квантовой электродинамики, изменить заодно теорию групп в определенных ее аспектах.
Как сделаете это и научный мир признает ваш вклад в это грандиозное достижение, тогда и будем обсуждать вопрос «безусловного несоответствия» LT реалиям физического мира.
Вот так.
Preprint Use of the classical speed (c - v) in the Wiki Figure purpor...
Alexey Platonov
16) "In fact, physics is full of professional physicists who really do not understand, for various reasons, in the STR."
I can imagine that. I would say that NONE of those who say that SRT is right have understood how this theory works.
17) "And when someone, for example, like me, see this no success in this matter, I have every right to declare that the author does not understand this issue."
Even if you were to just say "you don't understand SRT", it is not correct if you don't show where the person is wrong. Accusing, just saying it in words, without proving it, is not right!
18) "And these are no personal attacks. This is a simple statement of the actual state of affairs, and there is no disrespect here."
Don't forget that you yourself are not the absolute judge here.
19) "Therefore, I reject your accusation of personal attacks on you as not justified."
Read GR policy. You should not write about the person, but about their comments, their posts, ...
20) "There are really contradictions in the STR, but not where you see them."
It's subjective. You see them in your work, I see them in mine. And if you say so, you have to show where I'm wrong. (And not write about me as a person!).
21) "Sometimes, indeed, leads. In other cases, it does not lead at all. Each such case must be disassembled separately, delve into the essence of the problem and find ways to solve it."
Yes, that's how it is and that's how it should be done.
22) "LT connection with events from the physical world (electrodynamics) does not lead to contradictions."
SRT and LT are not about 'electrodynamics'!
SRT and LT are, to the highest degree, about 'events from the physical world'!
I now have 12 proofs (little notes of under a page) that show the "Relativity of Simultaneity" is in error.
You can see the error in this BBC documentary.
"as the light travels out from the strike, the train is moving towards one, and away from the other. Light from the front strike reaches her eyes first. For the lady, time elapses between the two strikes"
https://youtu.be/5WyAd9QX7pc?t=790
The "moving towards one" means light is reaching the lady at c + v. (It's classical addition of velocities, as mentioned in my note.)
The "moving away from the other" means light is reaching the lady at c - v (she is running away from the light beam), as mentioned in my note.
But, as every school-boy knows, the speed of light is Absolute. Light only ever travels at "c" under every circumstance. No exceptions whatsoever.
You will also notice, that since they say the lady on the train is traveling at close to the speed of light (let's say she is traveling at v = 0.99c,) then light would be reaching her at almost 2c, ie. c + 0.99c = 1.99c, that is, almost twice the speed of light.
Have you ever heard of light traveling at twice the speed of light?
------------------------------------------------------
This is resolved by utilising the Einstein vel. Addition formula for light rays, in which light travels slower, -relative to the classical expectation of c + v -- (actually at c,) and faster -relative to the classical expectation of c - v-- (actually at c,) such that the strikes hit the lady on the train simultaneously too, and not "one after the other" as stated, in error. i.e. there is no "Relativity of Simultaneity" ; importantly, light travels at C = c in all cases.
This is also borne out logically, because, we can always say it is the platform that is "doing the moving," and so the lady on the train would be "stationary" when the strikes strike, and so she would receive these light-rays simultaneously, and not "one after the other" as stated above, in error.
Preprint Use of the classical speed (c - v) in the Wiki Figure purpor...
Gary Stephens Ramesh Chandra John-Erik Persson
There has been a lot of talk about simultaneity, so please, here is my article on the subject.
Preprint Simultaneity in Physical Reality
Fact numero 1. The Official Wiki Figure depicts classical addition of velocities (c - v) in going between frames, -- from one to another.
Fact numero 2. The Einstein vel. addition formula is not applied in this figure, to the speed of light when going between frames,-- from one to the other, as it should be.
If it were applied, instead of c - v, we would simply have C = c.
Fact numero 3. The Einstein vel. addition formula is derived from the Lorentz relations, which connect one frame to another (viz. a "stationary" frame to a "moving" frame or vice versa).
Fact numero 4. The Einstein vel. addition formula is only proved for --light rays only--, by the Fizeau experiment, as stated by Einstein in the original paper.
Fact numero 5. Because of Fact numero 2, ie. C = c in going between frames, then this "rubs out" the "Relativity of Simultaneity" which is contingent upon the classical addition of velocities (c - v), ( c + v).
Fact numero 6. Because we have no "Relativity of Simultaneity" both Special Relativity and General Relativity are without foundation.
We have Newtonian classical time, as defined in the Principia.
Hawking forgot that if distance is variable (dependent upon the speed of the frame v,) then we would use c - v, and not c. So c has to vary-- or alter from c - v up to c.
When c alters from c - v up to to c, then time t becomes fixed and Absolute for both observers.
So contrary to what Hawking asserts "the theory of relativity put an end to the idea of Absolute time!" . .
The opposite it true.
Unfortunately, this means the rest of the book, which is a brilliant book in many respects, in terms of imagination and descriptive power, does not actually pertain to the real world.
For example, in the above, since space and time are Absolute, then "massive bodies" can travel at any speed whatsoever, as has likely already been observed astronomically.
Preprint Use of the classical speed (c - v) in the Wiki Figure purpor...
I've made my (unanswered and unanswerable) proof a bit clearer. Confer below.
Preprint Precis of the proof we have an Absolute character to time an...
And don't forget Kılıç's brilliant tract of 2006.
Article The incompatibility of Einstein's relativity of simultaneity...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Who_receives_the_rays_from_the_lightning_bolt_first
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Communications (Networks)
- Simulators