Mathematical Invalidity, lorentz transform. in relativity

The moderators on physicsforums are so uptight......hopefully I can post this on here without problems...

Anyway, came across this on the web and just wanted to hear people's thoughts on it. (Not mine in anyway)

Mathematical Invalidity of the Lorentz Transform. in Relativity

It's crackpot ignorance. Why post dog crap and whine about how it will be accepted by folks interested in science? Nobody is uptight. You're just a dunce for posting crap and whining about how it will be accepted by rpenner.

Ahhh, but what did you honestly expect from a guy with a handle like physx_420?

He obviously learned all he needed to by smoking up and naval gazing.

Every time that author claims an "error" -- the author reveals his ignorance of both the subject matter of physics and of mathematics itself.

The basic idea, which the author misses, is that Galilean Relativity and Special Relativity are mathematical transforms which allow K to put himself in K-prime's shoes. Obviously, if K and K' are to agree on a single type of physics, this transform has to be a smooth one, or physics will seem to have very peculiar conditions, like a sticky automatic transmission on a car makes the ride peculiar.

By adding explicit labels, you can show that we never improperly mix events from the light flash going in different directions....

Special relativity assumes for any particular flash of light going in the minus and plus directions that the following is agreed upon by K and K'
Δx_P - cΔt_P = 0 = Δx'_P - cΔt'_P
and
Δx_M + cΔt_M = 0 = Δx'_M + cΔt'_M
(here M and P are suppressed labels for "events" -- points in space and time. Obviously the flash itself is also an event -- the only event the M and P labels have in common. Δx_0 = Δx'_0 = 0, Δt_0 = Δt'_0 = 0 -- because there is no physics that would let an event happen at a different time or place than itself.)

So what is wanted is a way for K to relate any event know to it in K-prime's shoes.

Δx' = X(Δx, Δt, K, K')
Δt' = T(Δx, Δt, K, K')

But we already know that X(0, 0, K, K') = 0 and T(0, 0, K, K') = 0.

So we are talking about something that looks linear in Δx and Δt .

Clearly, if these equations hold, then even when Δx and Δt aren't 0, it's legal to write
Δx' = X(Δx, Δt, K, K') = Δx δ(K, K') + Δt ε(K, K')
Δt' = T(Δx, Δt, K, K') = Δx ζ(K, K') + Δt η(K, K')

Likewise, we know
Δx' - cΔt' = X(Δx_P, Δt_P, K, K') - c T(Δx_P, Δt_P, K, K') = 0
Δx' + cΔt' =X(Δx_M, Δt_M, K, K') + c T(Δx_M, Δt_M, K, K') = 0
for all events M and P. But it is stupid to believe X() and T() care about which events or which labels are applied to them. These equations are just special relationships that hold because of Maxwell's equations experimentally are the same for K and K'.

Clearly, if these equations hold for all M and P, then
X(Δx_P, Δt_P, K, K') = Δx_P λ(K, K')
T(Δx_P, Δt_P, K, K') = Δt_P λ(K, K')
X(Δx_M, Δt_M, K, K') = Δx_M μ(K, K')
T(Δx_M, Δt_M, K, K') = Δt_M μ(K, K')

So since Δx_P = c Δt_P and Δx_M = - c Δt_M
c Δt_P λ(K, K') = c Δt_P δ(K, K') + Δt_P ε(K, K')
Δt_P λ(K, K') = c Δt_P ζ(K, K') + Δt_P η(K, K')
- c Δt_M μ(K, K') = - c Δt_M δ(K, K') + Δt_M ε(K, K')
Δt_M μ(K, K') = - c Δt_M ζ(K, K') + Δt_M η(K, K')

Simplifying:
λ(K, K') = δ(K, K') + (1/c) ε(K, K')
λ(K, K') = c ζ(K, K') + η(K, K')
μ(K, K') = δ(K, K') + (-1/c) ε(K, K')
μ(K, K') = - c ζ(K, K') + η(K, K')

Thus
δ(K, K') = (λ(K, K') + μ(K, K') )/2 = η(K, K')
ε(K, K') = c (λ(K, K') - μ(K, K') )/2
ζ(K, K') = (λ(K, K') - μ(K, K') )/(2c)

using a(K, K') = (λ(K, K') + μ(K, K') )/2 and b(K, K') = (λ(K, K') - μ(K, K') )/2, we have
Δx' = X(Δx, Δt, K, K') = Δx a(K, K') + c Δt b(K, K')
Δt' = T(Δx, Δt, K, K') = (1/c) Δx b(K, K') + Δt a(K, K')

Now if we assume that for K' , we have a set of events such that:
Δx'_L = 0 and we solve for Δx_L and Δt_L then we have
0 = Δx_L a(K, K') + c Δt_L b(K, K')
which has solution
Δx_L / Δt_L = - c b(K, K') / a(K, K')
which are events on the worldline (for K) of an object traveling at constant speed.

So v(K, K') = - c b(K, K') / a(K, K') means
b(K, K') = - (1/c) v(K, K') a(K, K')

and now we have:
Δx' = X(Δx, Δt, K, K') = Δx a(K, K') - v(K, K') Δt a(K, K') = a(K, K') (Δx - v(K, K') Δt )
Δt' = T(Δx, Δt, K, K') = (-v(K, K')/c^2) Δx a(K, K') + Δt a(K, K') = a(K, K') (Δt - v(K, K') Δx / c^2)

But this pedantic approach is hardly proper to criticize an author who fails to use inconsistent correctly. At no point does the author begin to address the consistency of the Lorentz or Poincare groups.

wow you guys need to chill out.....way to be a tough guy and attack me over the internet....

and yes I smoke marijuana....so what. I know plenty of people who smoke and study...in a way it helps to visualize things. If you think it to be stupid, you are quite ignorant and I won't waste my time or you're time and argue about it....obviously it'd be hopeless to argue about it with smug people who think they're better than the rest of the world. BTW, I did learn most of what I know while at the same time smoking (obviously not during lectures...), however I'm far from complete and people like you who hold me down for being a little different are just backgrounds noise.

all I wanted to do was see what other people thought about that link....in case you didn't read my post, I didn't come up with it. It's just some random thing I found on the internet. I don't support it, honestly, I don't believe Einstein was wrong. Again, I just wanted to see others' opinions. If you can't post anything without smugness, don't post in my thread. Learn to refrain yourself, or did you're parents not teach you how to be mature?

Anyway, thank you rpenner for having an actual and constructive reply.

Vukelja is a crackpot. He's been at it for years.
On the other hand, it is good to read the garbage off the Walter Babin website, it sharpens your critical skills. Practically, everything "published" on that website is written by antimainstream cranks who self-"publish", so, if you can find their mistakes, you can learn a lot about physics via debunking.
Having said that, let me take a slightly different tack than rpenner, I will dissect the Vukelja claims. Vukelja claims that Einstein uses

x-ct=0
x'-ct'=0

If you look at Einstein's paper, you realize immediately that Vukelja is either lying or that he's delusional. The paper goes downhill from there.

This post has been edited by Trout on May 2 2010, 11:20 PM

"Having said that, let me take a slightly different tack than rpenner, I will dissect the Vukelja claims. Vukelja claims that Einstein uses

x-ct=0
x'-ct'=0

If you look at Einstein's paper, you realize immediately that Vukelja is either lying or that he's delusional. The paper goes downhill from there."

But Einstein does use what Vukelja claims he uses.
Here check this out on page 98 in the appendix on Einstein's derivation of the transformations.

Again, I'd like to say I don't agree with Vukelja.

This is how you started your first post:

"The moderators on physicsforums are so uptight......hopefully I can post this on here without problems..."

So what did you expect? Supposedly this was your first post so how would you come to such a conclusion? Sockpuppet.

in case you were confused brucep,
physicsforums.com is a completely different website...I wasn't talking about the mods. on this site. And they are uptight on that website, most of them think they're so much better than everyone else and put posters down who ask questions that don't seem academically par to them. They fail to realize though that not everyone is a scientist or engineer, at least not yet, and some of these "simple-minded" questions could actually benefit beginners. Like trout said, you can learn a lot from debunking crackpot theories.

BTW, you really need to get over yourself bruce. And no I'm no sockpuppet, I didn't just come up with a name to use on here to push this "theory" if you can even call it that. However you seem to not be able to understand that, so I'll repeat myself once again:

I DIDN'T COME UP WITH THIS, I JUST WANT TO HEAR PEOPLE'S OPINIONS ON THE MATTER.

If you can't contribute anything constructive stop posting in here because you obviously are to immature for me which is why this will be my last response regarding yours or anyone else's ignorance.

You thoroughly misjudge them. I've had a thread locked and received a warning for posting speculation on that forum, but unlike you, I have the objectivity to understand what it was.

I posted questions about whether something was a good metaphor. They responded by warning me and locking the thread. It wasn't a matter of them treating me with disdain because I was less knowledgeable than some, but them responding to what they perceived (incorrectly, but still) as crankery. There's few or no people over there who will dislike you simply because you ask questions about physics.

You got your answer in Bruce's first post here. You got another from rpenner. You got a third from Trout. You got an implied answer from my response to Bruce.

Yet -amazingly considering that you're supposedly just here to get opinions, and not to defend this theory- you defended the theory when it was critiqued.

You've already lied and refused to accept evidence that your chosen beliefs are wrong. Do you seriously expect us to respect you after this?

So far, all you've done is post and defend a crackpot theory, and whine about another forum. In what way exactly are you being constructive?

I never once said I agreed with this theory nor did I defend it. You were attacking me so I defended myself. I"m also fairly certain I never lied about anything so I'd appreciate you not call me a liar. BTW, never did I once post my beliefs...well actually if you actually read my posts than maybe I did post my belief....."I don't support it, honestly, I don't believe Einstein was wrong."

And no, I don't thoroughly misjudge them. Not all of them, but some of them, will post in threads with their pretentious attitudes where an innocent poster is just trying to get some answers. And I do understand why it was locked, what I didn't understand was why they wouldn't let me keep it up so other people could debunk it and allow me to learn something from it. I only want to learn and hear others' constructive inputs.

Once again, I'm not here to discuss your misunderstanding of me. If you have nothing to say that is helpful than please refrain yourself from responding Capt. Smug.

Yes, in the book written for popularization. Not in his 1905 paper.

Liar.

"Context," and "Subtext."

Yes, you did. Both they and I would agree, and you can hardly accuse me of being in cahoots with them.

Because that is not a forum for debunking, but one for actual discussions of actual physics.

I asked you a question which you chose to ignore. I'll ask another.

In what way, exactly is calling me such a ridiculously juvenile name helpful or constructive in any way?

"Yes, in the book written for popularization. Not in his 1905 paper."

Touche, trout. Again I would like to thank you for being the only mature one (and rpenner) and understanding where I was coming from.

That is true , some of them are real jerks and they don't know physics (though they pretend they do). Here, you have much more tolerant mods but don't abuse their tolerance.